Local Transport Today Issue 798

LTT798 front and back.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 07:53 Page 1

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

POLICY | PLANNING | FINANCE | DEVELOPMENT

Covid-19: temporary active travel schemes p5 TransportXtra.com/ltt

City regions criticise bus fund for Covid-19 recovery phase

BUSES

by Andrew Forster

ENGLAND’S CITY regions have criticised the Government’s funding proposals to deliver enhanced bus services as Covid19 travel restrictions are eased.

The bus industry could reach agreement with the Government next week on a new fund to pay for enhanced levels of service in England outside London. Talks are also taking place about similar deals with the Scottish and Welsh governments.

The DfT’s current 12-week £166.8m Covid-19 Bus Service Support Grant (CBSSG), launched in March, is paying operators to provide 40-50 per cent of normal service levels.

Ministers are keen to see public

transport services return to near normal as lockdown restrictions ease. The first relaxations in England took place this week.

Social distancing guidelines mean that bus services are expected to operate vehicles at only about 25 per cent of seating capacity. Operators will therefore require additional Government funding to meet the cost of frequency enhancements.

As a first step, LTT understands that the Treasury has agreed in principle to pay for operators to remobilise their fleets. Operators have delicensed many buses to save money during the virus outbreak and vehicles will need to be inspected and repaired before entering service.

The new round of funding for enhanced service levels is likely

to have to remain in place for many months. During this time, operators are likely to run high frequency services on their busiest routes to make up for the reduced capacity on each vehicle.

Part-route operations could run over the busiest parts of corridors.

The additional resource targeted at the busiest routes may result in reduced services on other routes.

LTT understands that, as with CBSSG, the Government plans to pay the majority of the new fund direct to operators, rather than via local transport authorities.

The DfT is also expected to ask local transport authorities to continue making concessionary fare reimbursement and tendered service payments to operators at pre-Covid-19 levels.

The proposals were criticised

this week by the Urban Transport Group (UTG) that represents city region transport authorities in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire, and South Yorkshire.

On the plan for local authorities to continue paying operators for concessionary travel and tendered services at pre-Covid-19 levels, it said: “Using public money to pay for services that are not being provided can only be justified as a short-term emergency measure.

“Local authority finances are under increasing strain and subject to a host of pressing priorities. There is no guarantee that they will be able to continue to prioritise paying bus operators for > TURN TO BACK PAGE

All aboard the social distance bus director, told LTT this week. The diagram shows First’s proposed seating plan for a Scania double decker. The green seats are those in which passengers will be permitted to sit. They total just 21 of the 76 seats.

6 TfL secures £1.6bn rescue deal

4-10 Covid-19 coverage

13 Axe falls on Oxford’s PickMeUp 18-21 HS2’s new business case 25 Phil Goodwin

TOP10

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Active travel inspectorate for England

ACTIVE TRAVEL

THE GOVERNMENT is to appoint a national walking and cycling commissioner and inspectorate for England. A long-term active travel budget similar to the five-year budget for Highways England will also be created.

Announcing the proposals,

transport secretary Grant Shapps also promised “legal changes to protect vulnerable road users”, and said the Government would create at least one “zero-emission city,” with its centre restricted to bikes and electric vehicles.

More details will be announced in a revamped cycling and walking investment strategy to be

launched by the Prime Minister in early June.

Shapps also announced the launch of a £250m fund for active travel schemes, the first part of a £2bn expenditure to encourage walking and cycling.

The Government is keen to promote active travel as Covid-19 restrictions are relaxed. It has just

published statutory guidance promoting temporary active travel schemes for local authorities in England.

Trials of e-Scooters are also to be fast-tracked because of Covid19. >> READ MORE? Active travel backed

pp4-5

8.

9.

DfT sifts 60 new rail plans

The psychology of change: Covid-19

FirstGroup seeks £300m loan to cope with virus disruption

Bus industry in talks over new grant for Covid recovery stage

We’ve pressed pause on the capital’s transport system, now let’s press reset

Freight on Rail reaches end of the line

Economic damage of Covid-19 means CAZ must be delayed, says Bristol

Bamford seeks Government backing to build 3,000 hydrogen buses

Liverpool and Hull to trial new pedestrian crossing designs

10. Council questions ethics of backing BEVs

most read LTT stories on

01 May - 14 May 2020

FirstGroup’s West of England subsidiary has been trialling social distancing on the 24 route in Bristol between Ashton Vale to Southmead Hospital. “It’s been very well received,” James Freeman, First West of England’s managing

PROVIDING INDEPENDENT NEWS & ANALYSIS SINCE 1989

LTT798_AtkinsSWHA.qxp_LTT719_p0 14/05/2020 11:46 Page 2

LTT798 15 May -28 May 2020

2 ADVERTORIAL

Reopen, Recover, Reimagine: Transport’s roadmap out of lockdown

T

he Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in global challenges on a scale that we have never previously encountered, straining healthcare systems, restricting travel and creating deep economic impacts, compounded by loss of life and impacts on our social and mental wellbeing.

With an overall 80-90% reduction in travel demand, traffic-free streets, difficulties in moving while maintaining social distancing and public transport operating dramatically reduced services, this has also presented fresh challenges for our transport systems.

When the time comes, the strategy out of lockdown must support both short-term recovery and the future repositioning of our society.

For the transport sector, this means creating accessibility to connect people with opportunities whilst at the same time dramatically reducing car travel to support the decarbonisation challenge.

In this first of a series of articles, we discuss the critical issues facing the transport sector and how we might respond.

We have developed a three-phase model – Reopen, Recover and Reimagine – to frame how the transport sector should respond to this unprecedented economic shock.

The challenge for the transport sector is that many people are looking for a return to the old normal; traffic volumes are already starting to rise, and history shows that people are keen to get back in their cars as soon as they can

Coming out of lockdown provides a fresh opportunity for us to think about life after Covid-19 and to face up to the most critical issues facing this country: the pathway to net zero and tackling the deep inequalities in our society writes Jonathan Foster-Clark, senior transport strategy adviser at Atkins Intelligent use of data, testing and learning will be critical as we transition out of lockdown. The decisions made over the next few months will shape the economy, society and the transport system for the next decade and beyond. These must be based on sound evidence on the needs of people and businesses. In the transport sector we need to understand the rapid changes taking place in the attitudes of transport users and the implications for their future travel choices.

Changes in how we live and work

Whilst we are all in this together, the hospitality, transport and construction sectors have been badly affected with large drops in activity. The furlough scheme will be a shortterm lifeline, but many businesses are running out of money. The social impacts have been uneven: many professionals have been able to move to home-working, but the impact has been most severe on lower-paid workers, specifically those in the gig economy.

There have been significant changes in the ways we live our lives: living, working and socialising from home. Skype, Zoom and Teams are now a central part of our daily language, with businesses, hobbies and friendships surviving on collaboration platforms. However, people gain nurture from human contact and we face major challenges with mental health, loneliness and isolation.

Changes in how we travel

There have been significant changes in the ways that we travel, including huge reductions in global air travel and existential threats to many airline operators. The bus and rail industries have been operating with skeletal services through the crisis, and there will be major challenges in encouraging people back onto public transport in the new era of social distancing.

However, people are interacting more with their local areas: engaging with neighbours in ‘Clap for Carers’ (in the UK), buying essential supplies from local stores, walking, cycling and even children playing hopscotch on the

pavement. Streets are quiet and people are asking if this could lead to cleaner, more sustainable ways of living.

The challenge for the transport sector is that many people are looking for a return to the old normal; traffic volumes are already starting to rise, and history shows that people are keen to get back in their cars as soon as they can.

It’s more than just about a reopening

The process of reopening will be based on much greater intelligence in testing and tracking the virus, with risks carefully managed until a vaccine is available, likely later in 2021.

We need to be planning now to recover our national and local economies. The evidence is showing that businesses and jobs are already suffering. In response, we are seeing organisations diversifying to survive: businesses using 3D printers to manufacture PPE, Growth Hubs providing advice to SMEs and the business community working with local government on emergency task forces.

We also need to reimagine our local economies to make them fit for the future.

This means being ready to identify fresh opportunities for people losing jobs, supporting those groups at most risk from job losses, managing the effects in the worst hit regions and supporting our high streets as the hubs of our local communities. This is critical in supporting the levelling-up of the UK’s post-Covid economy, whilst planning for its rapid decarbonisation.

The transport sector is braced for major changes in how people travel. The requirement for social distancing will cause profound changes in people’s perceptions of private and public transport and their travel choices.

Local authorities must plan for operating under a new normal. Cities worldwide are introducing pop-up lanes for walking and cycling; new operating regimes are being introduced for public transport and road networks are being considered in a fresh light.

LTT798_AtkinsSWHA.qxp_LTT719_p0 14/05/2020 11:46 Page 3

TransportXtra.com/ltt

What should local authorities be doing now?

Local authorities need to work with partners, to help businesses to recover, people find new jobs and proactively plan the future of their places. In transport terms, this means:

n Effective use of data to understand what has happened to travel demand during the lockdown and forecast the potential changes that could take place as we emerge into the release phase; n Repurposing of spaces where demand has changed, for example, the introduction of community activities in under-used car parks to support local high streets; n Rapid planning of measures to support safe walking and cycling in the new era of social distancing, including alternative approaches to traffic management, street closures and pop-up cycle lanes; n Bus and rail planning to enable people to reach jobs and services, with planning to manage the safe movement of people through stations and on vehicles, to rebuild confidence in public transport; n Examining the opportunities for acceleration for future mobility, including Mobility as a Service to support effective multi-modal travel choices; and n Considering the emerging ‘new normal’ in shaping strategies and early stage business cases, with scenario planning to understand the range of possible futures and steer us to the most desirable outcomes.

ADVERTORIAL 3

Now is the time…

Most importantly, local authorities must not lose sight of the importance of decarbonising the transport system and addressing the climate emergency. 2020 has been challenging, but now is the time to take the opportunity to re-shape our transport system for a low carbon future. This is in the hands of local authorities as place-makers, for the sake of future generations.

Our follow-up articles will explain how we can learn lessons from the lockdown, intelligently use data as we move into the release and recovery phases, capitalise on the recent digital transformation, understand user perceptions and chart the course to a brighter future.

n Jonathan Foster Clark is senior transport strategy adviser at Atkins, who will present at the South West Highways Alliance Conference ‘Highway to Zero Carbon’ on 15 September in Swindon

Atkins are the headline sponsor of the SWHA Highway to Zero Carbon conference STEAM, Swindon – 15 September 2020

Limited delegate places remain available To book visit: www.highwaytozerocarbon.co.uk

Local authorities must plan for operating under a new normal. Cities worldwide are introducing pop-up lanes for walking and cycling; new operating regimes are being introduced for public transport and road networks are being considered in a fresh light

LTT798 pp4-5.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 08:07 Page 1

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

4 News: Covid-19

£250m pot to reshape streets f

ACTIVE TRAVEL

THE GOVERNMENT is to release £250m to local authorities in England to deliver active travel investments. The funding could help lock-in increases to active travel seen during the Covid-19 outbreak.

The DfT said the funding would deliver measures such as bike lanes, wider pavements, safer junctions, and cycle corridors.

It could also fund bus-only corridors.

Transport secretary Grant Shapps said the funding was the “first stage” of a £2bn investment in active travel, part of the £5bn in new funding announced for cycling and buses in February.

When Boris Johnson announced the £5bn he said that “in the first instance” £350m would be for cycling (LTT 21 Feb). A DfT spokesman told LTT the new announcement “does not take funding away from buses”.

Johnson prefaced the £250m last week in the House of Commons when he

Johnson: golden age of cycling

announced he wanted to see a new “golden age of cycling”. He promoted the mode when mayor of London.

The £250m will be made available to councils in 2020/21 and will deliver measures “in line with local cycling and walking implementation plans (LCWIPs)”.

Not all councils have LCWIPs, so LTT asked if the funds would only be paid to those that did.

“Allocations will be agreed shortly,” said the spokesman. “Funding will be provided to local authorities in line with shorter-term priorities for local transport [Covid-19] restart measures and longerterm LCWIPs.” Discussing who would benefit from the funding, the DfT specifically mentioned Greater Manchester, “which wants to create 150 miles of protected cycle track”, and Transport for London, “which plans a ‘bike Tube’ network above Underground lines”.

Alongside the announcement, the DfT has issued new statutory guidance advising councils to “reallocate roadspace for significantly increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians” during Covid-19 (see below).

Shapps said: “During this crisis, millions of people have discovered cycling – whether for exercise or as a means of safe, socially-distanced transport.

“When the country does get back to work we need those people to stay on their

bikes and be joined by many more.

“Otherwise, with public transport’s capacity severely restricted at this time, our trains and buses could become overcrowded and our roads gridlocked, holding up emergency services, critical workers and vital supplies.

“We know cars will continue to remain vital for many, but as we look to the future we must build a better country with greener travel habits, cleaner air and healthier communities,” he added.

The DfT is also exploring issuing the public with vouchers for cycle repairs, “to encourage people to get their old bikes out of the shed”. It says plans are being developed “for greater provision of bike fixing facilities”.

The Government will also be launching a campaign “to encourage more people to look at alternative ways to travel, to walk or get on a bike for their commute instead of public transport”. This will be backed by cyclists including Chris Froome and Geraint Thomas.

Give roadspace to active travel, DfT tells councils

ACTIVE TRAVEL

THE DFT has instructed local authorities in England to consider temporarily re-allocating roadspace to pedestrians and cyclists to help them keep to social distancing guidelines, and to encourage new ‘greener’ travel behaviours in the long-term.

In the foreword to new Covid19 guidance on the network management duty, transport secretary Grant Shapps said: “The Government expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians.

Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel.”

The statutory guidance, issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, applies to all highway authorities in England.

On road space reallocation, it says: “Local authorities in areas with high levels of public transport use should take measures to reallocate road space to people walking and cycling, both to encourage active travel and to enable social distancing during restart. Local authorities where public transport use is low should be considering all possible measures.”

Measures should be taken “as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks, given the urgent need to change travel habits before the restart [out of lockdown] takes full effect”.

“None of these measures are new – they are interventions that

are a standard part of the traffic management toolkit, but a stepchange in their roll-out is needed to ensure a ‘green’ restart,” says the DfT. Actions to help cyclists could include: • installing ‘pop-up’ cycle facilities with a minimum level of physical separation from volume traffic, for example, mandatory cycle lanes using light segregation features such as flexible plastic wands • quickly converting traffic lanes into temporary cycle lanes (suspending parking bays where necessary) • widening cycle lanes to enable cyclists to maintain distancing “Facilities should be segregated as far as possible, i.e. with physical measures separating cyclists and other traffic. Lanes indicated by road markings only are very unlikely to be sufficient to deliver the level of change needed, especially in the longer term.”

Cones and barriers could be used to: • widen footways along lengths of road, particularly outside shops and transport hubs • provide more space at bus stops to allow people to queue and socially distance • widen pedestrian refuges and crossings (both formal and informal) to enable people to cross roads safely and at a distance The guidance also encourages councils to introduce ‘school streets’, described as “areas around schools where motor traffic is restricted at pick-up and

drop-off times, during term-time”.

More 20mph speed limits should be considered. “20mph limits alone will not be sufficient to meet the needs of active travel, but in association with other measures, reducing the speed limit can provide a more attractive and safer environment for walking and cycling.”

Pedestrian and cycle zones are suggested, in which access for motor vehicles is restricted at certain times (or at all times), particularly in town centres and high streets. “This will enable active travel but also social distancing in places where people are likely to gather.”

The DfT also backs modal filters – also known as filtered permeability – closing roads to motor traffic, for example by using planters or large barriers.

Additional cycle parking facilities should be provided at key locations, such as outside stations and in high streets.

Junction designs could be changed to accommodate more cyclists – for example, extending Advanced Stop Lines at traffic lights to the maximum permitted depth of 7.5 metres where possible.

“All these measures can be introduced temporarily, either in isolation or as a combined package of measures,” says the DfT. “Some interventions, including new lightly-segregated cycle lanes, will not require Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).”

Others will require TROs, of which there are different types.

The main ones are:

• Permanent: this includes prior consultation on the proposed scheme design, a 21-day notice period for statutory consultees and others.

• Experimental: these are used to trial schemes that may then be made permanent. Authorities may put in place monitoring arrangements, and carry out ongoing consultation once the measure is built. “Although the initial implementation period can be quick, the need for extra monitoring and consultation afterwards makes them a more onerous process overall,” says the DfT. • Temporary: these can be in place for up to 18 months. There is a seven-day notice period prior to making the TRO and a 14-day

notification requirement after it is made, plus publicity requirements. These are most suitable for putting in place temporary measures and road closures.

The guidance will be reviewed after three months.

Traffic signs may be needed to inform pedestrians, cyclists and drivers of changes to road layouts, particularly where temporary widening is in place. The DfT is publishing separate advice on using existing signing, and some new temporary designs.

Traffic Management Act 2004 network management in response to Covid-19 is available at https://tinyurl.com/yantgx7b

‘Don’t forget freight’ The Freight Transport Association has urged councils not to forget the needs of freight in the rush to install measures to help pedestrians and cyclists social distance.

Natalie Chapman, the Freight Transport Association’s head of urban policy, said: “The published statutory guidance directs councils to reallocate road space for significantly-increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians but overlooks access for those who keep our cities supplied with everything they need – logistics vehicles.”

The FTA has written to transport minister Baroness Vere to request urgent clarification on several areas.

Said Chapman: “The FTA is urging authorities to provide reassurance that access to the kerbside for deliveries and servicing activity is maintained at all times – particularly as shops begin to reopen and demand for goods increases – and that any temporary reallocation of road space for walking and cycling be flexed and changed dynamically to reflect changes in demand and to ensure access for vital logistics services.

“Road closures and diversions must consider the increased journey times involved and the potential disruption that displaced traffic could cause on nearby roads.”

LTT798 pp4-5.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 08:07 Page 3

TransportXtra.com/ltt

News: Covid-19 5

s for active travel growth Temporary footpaths and cycle lanes to ease Covid-19 pressures ACTIVE TRAVEL

LOCAL AUTHORITIES across the country are implementing temporary cycle lanes and widened footways to encourage active travel as Covid-19 lockdown restrictions are eased. The actions are endorsed by the DfT, Scottish and Welsh governments.

Councils want to see more people walking and cycling because social distancing guidelines mean public transport capacity is much reduced. They also don’t want to encourage additional road traffic.

London mayor Sadiq Khan and Transport for London have begun the ‘London Streetspace’ programme. Working with boroughs, TfL said this would “rapidly transform London’s streets to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking as lockdown restrictions are eased”.

TfL said works would include the rapid construction of a strategic cycling network, using temporary materials, including new routes to reduce crowding on the Underground, rail lines, and busy bus corridors.

Work to widen footways in town centres across London and to reduce traffic on residential streets is also underway.

TfL has widened footways on a number of roads including Brixton and Camden high streets.

In Brixton, one of three adjacent bus stops has been removed to reduce crowding. Pavement widening is also planned for roads such as Borough High Street, London Bridge, and Kingsland Road in Dalston. A cycle lane was installed this week on Park Lane in central London.

Footway widening in Brixton

All the above streets are part of the Transport for London Road Network.

A TfL spokeswoman said that, although the measures were temporary, the hope was that many could be replaced by permanent measures, subject to the approval of local stakeholders and statutory processes.

Manchester City Council is widening footways on key walking routes from travel hubs, such as railway stations and tram stops.

Council leader Sir Richard Lease this week announced a plan to pilot the pedestrianisation of parts of Deansgate “to test how we can make our city centre more attractive for people who want to walk and cycle”.

The council has been talking to Transport for Greater Manchester about how to achieve social distancing at busy bus and tram stops.

The City of Edinburgh Council has closed three roads, Silverknowes Road, Braid Road and Links Gardens. Elsewhere it is implementing road lane closures and temporary cycle lanes.

“In the medium term, as lockdown measures continue and are eventually eased, we will develop a citywide approach to more sig-

nificant changes, such as expanded cycle lanes and the creation of bus gates,” said the council.

The Welsh Government has invited local authorities to submit proposals for temporary measures by 21 May with a view to introducing schemes in the early summer.

The City of York Council has coned off the westbound lane over Castle Mills Bridge to give extra room for cyclists and pedestrians. The council upset cyclists after extending the footway on Bishopthorpe Road by putting cones in the cycle lane.

Brighton & Hove City Council closed Madeira Drive on the seafront to motor vehicles last month.

Leicester City Council has created a cycle lane by coning off a 1km section of Saffron Lane and Aylestone Road, including making use of a bus lane. The

council has also lengthened pedestrian crossing timings at some traffic signals.

The London Borough of Hackney has closed Barnabas Road to through-traffic. The road, linking Wick Road and Homerton High Street, is a key route for residents using Homerton Station, workers at Homerton University Hospital and cyclists using protected lanes on Wick Road.

Planters have been installed to prevent through traffic.

The council has also closed Broadway Market to through traffic, and widened pavements at seven locations to help maintain social distancing.

The London Borough of Hounslow is to suspend some parking along Turnham Green Terrace and in Hounslow West to provide wider pavements on the busy local retail parades.

It is also amending bus lane hours across the borough to extend to 24/7 where possible, and at a minimum to cover the busiest times on a trial basis. As well as helping buses, this will give additional space for cyclists.

Provision for loading to local premises will be retained.

Hounslow said it would also step up work to introduce ‘school streets’ – timed resident-only access restrictions to reduce traffic and parking outside school gates.

Re-allocating road space in response to Covid-19 Join the discussion!

Roadspace reallocation is the topic of LTT’s next Zoom discussion, at 2pm on Friday 22 May. For details – see page 24

Local Transport Today provides fortnightly coverage of the total urban and regional UK transport scene from the viewpoint of planners, policy makers, traffic engineers, analysts, investors and managers of resources involved.

Editorial Office Apollo House 359 Kennington Lane London SE11 5QY. Tel: 0207 091 7875 Email: ed.ltt@landor.co.uk Publisher/Editorial Director Peter Stonham Editor Andrew Forster Design & Production natalie.clarke@landor.co.uk Managing Director Rod Fletcher

SPECIAL NOTE: The majority of LTT staff are currently furloughed. For all enquiries, including sales and subscriptions, please contact the editorial office – details above.

Commercial Director Daniel Simpson Tel: 0207 091 7861 E-mail: daniel@landor.co.uk Advertising and Recruitment Sales Executive Jason Conboy Tel: 0207 091 7895 E-mail: jit@landor.co.uk Subscriptions Christina Pierre (Mondays-Thursdays 10:00-17:00) Tel: 0207 091 7959 E-mail: subs@landor.co.uk Subscribe on line TransportXtra.com/shop Accounts Irina Cocks Tel: 0207 091 7854 Registered office 359 Kennington Lane London SE11 5QY Printed by Stephens & George Print Group Goat Mill Road Dowlais Merthyr Tydfil CF48 3TD Tel: 01685 388888 www.stephensandgeorge.co.uk ISSN 0962 6220. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

LTT is published by Landor LINKS Ltd. © Landor LINKS Ltd 2020 www.landor.co.uk

E-scooter trials fast-tracked across UK

ACTIVE TRAVEL

THE GOVERNMENT is to permit trials of rental E-scooters from next month across the UK. The DfT said this would “help encourage more people off public transport and onto greener alternatives” during the Covid-19 restrictions.

The trials were originally due to take place next year in the Government’s four Future Trans-

port Zones: the West Midlands, the West of England Combined Authority area; Derby and Nottingham; and the Solent Transport area (Southampton/Portsmouth/ Isle of Wight).

But the DfT will now allow anywhere in the UK to host trials, starting next month. Trials will “allow Government to assess the benefits of e-scooters as well as their impact on public space”.

West Midlands mayor Andy

Street said: “This trial will help bring more flexibility, choice, and greener travel solutions for the region, at a time when we are facing a climate emergency and urging people to leave the car at home.

“We will also use the trial to look at the current transport challenges the coronavirus pandemic has presented us with and explore how e-scooters could be used to help tackle them.

The Government must amend secondary legislation to allow trials to begin.

Transport Scotland welcomed the UK Government’s decision.

“As the popularity and prevalence of e-scooters and other forms of micro-mobility increases globally, we are keen to understand trends across a range of issues, including the safety of both the user of the scooter and other road users,” said a spokesman.

Landor LINKS Ltd is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation: www.ipso.co.uk

LTT798 page 6.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 08:25 Page 141

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

6 News: Covid-19

TfL strikes £1.6bn deal with Treasury to cover Covid costs

FUNDING

by Andrew Forster

TRANSPORT FOR London this week struck a £1.6bn deal with the Government to fill a gaping financial hole created by Covid19.

The deal will keep services running until September. TfL estimates the full year cost of Covid-19 is likely to be about £3.2bn.

Features of the agreement include: • an above inflation fare rise next January • £505m of the £1.6bn as a loan • free travel is temporarily suspended for Freedom Pass and 60-plus card holders at peak times • a review of the congestion charge London mayor Sadiq Khan said: “This deal is a sticking plaster. The old model for funding public transport in London simply does not work in this new reality – fares income will not cover the cost of running services while so few people can safely use public transport. Over the next few months we will

have to negotiate a new funding model with Government – which will involve either permanent funding from Government or giving London more control over key taxes so we can pay for it ourselves – or a combination of both.”

Simon Kilonback, TfL’s chief finance officer, had warned earlier this week that if no deal was forthcoming from Government, TfL would have to “consider alternatives to TfL’s current budgetary position, including whether the chief finance officer should consider issuing a report under section 114

of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.”

A Section 114 report would outline the requirement to impose immediate spending restrictions and look to reduce services to the absolute minimum.

Kilonback told TfL’s finance committee that Tube patronage was down 95 per cent, bus patronage 85 per cent, and TfL had suffered an overall income loss of around 90 per cent, including non-passenger incomes. Khan has temporarily suspended the central London congestion charge, the ultra-low emission zone and the low emission zone

to allow critical workers to make journeys.

Kilonback said TfL was operating around 80 per cent of bus services and around 50 per cent of the regular Tube service, with a higher proportion of services still running in the morning peak.

“It is costing TfL around £600m a month to run its network,” he said. “We have already taken a significant amount of cost out of the organisation, including the furlough of 7,000 staff.” Work on more than 300 construction projects has temporarily ceased.

“These savings cannot, however, cover the loss from the steep decline in revenue, which for the full year are anticipated to be over £4.0bn.”

TfL has prepared an emergency budget for 2020/21 as an interim measure until it can propose a revised budget later in the year. Kilonback said the emergency budget was “prioritising only what is essential for maintenance of basic services to support Covid-19 Government planning and safety-related activities”.

Even the emergency budget has a funding gap of “around £3.2bn”, however. “Our proposed emergency budget presents a funding gap of up to £1.9bn in the first half of 2020/21 based on TfL revenue modelling, which reflects our understanding of the Government’s Covid-19 scenarios, and over £3.0bn to the end of 2020/21 on the same basis.”

Kilonback said this took into account “deliverable cost savings, TfL’s best estimates of income, as well as modelling our useable reserves”.

“The revised budget maintains that we cannot breach our £1.2bn minimum cash balance. This balance represents only two months’ worth of operating costs and is seen by TfL and its external financial stakeholders as its minimum requirements in order to operate.”

The Government’s requirement on TfL to increase public transport fares by 1 per cent above inflation as part of the deal will be painful for London mayor Sadiq Khan. He was elected on a pledge to freeze public transport fares in the capital.

Don’t decimate our budgets, boroughs tell TfL

FUNDING

LONDON BOROUGHS are urging Transport for London not to slash the budget for borough transport improvements as it struggles with Covid-19 financial problems (see story above).

Reductions in grant will add to the problems facing boroughs, who have already seen their transport plans hit by the huge loss of income from parking and developer contributions caused by the virus lockdown.

Borough concerns are set out in a letter to London transport commissioner Mike Brown from Mark Frost, chair of the London Technical Advisors Group (LoTAG) strategic transport group, and Dan Jones, chair of the London Environment Directors Network (LEDNet).

Recognising that TfL’s financial position has been devastated by the virus, Frost and Jones offer to work with TfL to “agree the options available” for borough funding, and ensure that the “impacts of any reduction in funding” are managed so that “local capacity to deliver transport projects is retained as far as prac-

ticable”.

“We are particularly concerned that a severe and immediate reduction in borough funding, across all the various streams that TfL makes available to boroughs, could deal a fatal blow to the capacity of boroughs that may be difficult to reverse in future,” say Frost and Jones.

“We estimate that well over 600 borough transport jobs are either wholly or partly funded by TfL local implementation plan (LIP) formula funding or from other ‘discretionary’ pots such as ‘liveable neighbourhoods’, or ‘Mini-Hollands’.

“Removal of this funding would therefore lead to significant redundancies, particularly as the ability to easily furlough staff in local government employment is under question. Further jobs are obviously also at risk through the construction supply chain.”

Frost told LTT that, prior to Covis-19, boroughs had received notification from TfL of part of their allocations for 2020/21.

“Our formula funding allocations (plus the £100k local transport funding) had been confirmed. That totalled around

£74.5m. Some boroughs also received confirmation of liveable neighbourhood funding and other TfL ‘discretionary pots’.”

The grant has not yet been paid to boroughs, however, because they claim funding from TfL in arrears.

Boroughs are facing a huge reduction of income from other sources that fund transport. “Collectively, boroughs are anticipating a fall of over £250m in income from parking fees and charges and penalty charge notices, though in a scenario where the lockdown lasts in the autumn and winter this figure could be closer to £500m,” say Frost and Jones.

“This funding is often used to support borough transport schemes and to cover staffing costs. In recent years it has increasingly been used to support highway asset maintenance, given the reduction in funding for this task from TfL. “Based on the current [emergency funding] announcements by central government we are not anticipating that these losses will be covered to any significant extent.”

Developer contributions are also taking a hit. “Across London income from Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in the coming months is predicted to plunge as developers delay consented scheme commencements or seek to re-negotiate agreements.

“Already there are many requests for CIL payments to be waived and S106 agreements to be renegotiated. Fee earning works on the highway (through S278 or S38 agreements) are also largely on hold.

“Taken together, these cuts represent an existential level of risk to borough transport capacity, which we note has already been reduced significantly after a near decade of cuts to general local government funding.”

Frost and Jones say there is a risk that boroughs may “no longer be able to assist TfL in delivering the mayor’s transport strategy (MTS) in any meaningful way”.

“This would be particularly damaging because, as the MTS acknowledges, the boroughs are a key delivery partner as the authorities, which manage the vast majority of London’s highway

network.”

They say a “severe reduction” in borough capacity will also “hamper the opportunity for officers to work with TfL to explore how some of the positive behaviour changes observed on the network in recent weeks (improved air quality, more active travel, reduced private vehicle trips etc) can be locked-in and a ‘new normal’ forged.

“This could therefore represent an historic missed opportunity in what is likely to be a very small window of time where people may be open to doing things radically differently.”

They want TfL and the Greater London Authority to agree an emergency settlement for boroughs in 2020/21. “This should provide enough certainty to allow for the prevention of a severe reduction in borough officer headcount, and for scheme development and design to continue as far as possible, allowing for these to be rapidly progressed to site in 2021/22.

They accept that some projects, “even some that are very far advanced, may need to be paused”.

LTT798 page 7.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 08:33 Page 5

TransportXtra.com/ltt

News: Covid-19 7

Council transport budgets at risk as cost of Covid-19 grows FUNDING

by Andrew Forster

COUNCIL TRANSPORT spending looks set to be cut as local government grapples with the mounting cost of Covid-19.

The Government has given councils in England £3.2bn of emergency Covid-19 aid.

Councils say their share of the grant will be insufficient to cover additional costs and income losses. The forecasts are highly uncertain, depending as they do on the length of virus restrictions and medium-term economic impacts.

The ten Greater Manchester districts are particularly affected because they normally receive a dividend from Manchester Airport Group. The councils own 64.5 per cent of the shares in MAG, which also owns Stansted. Travel restrictions mean air travel has collapsed.

Manchester City Council owns 35.5 per cent of MAG and had expected to receive a dividend of £62m in 2020/21.

The council has received £33.8m of Covid-19 support from Government but believes the financial hit will be circa £152m. Of this, £26m represents additional costs and £126m represents loss of income, including from business rates, council tax, and the MAG dividend.

“Income losses are expected to continue far beyond the initial crisis and may extend to three to four years before we see a return to previous levels,” said city treasurer Carol Culley.

Manchester is to review its revenue and capital budgets in July. “There are serious concerns about the ability to deliver a balanced budget over the next two to three years,” said Culley.

In February, Brighton & Hove City Council approved a plan to supplement the £4.76m capital transport budget for 2020/21 with £3.9m of spending financed by borrowing repaid from surplus parking revenues.

With parking income decimated

by Covid-19 restrictions, the additional spend has been put on hold.

Brighton & Hove has received £16.2m from Government but estimates Covid-19 will cost it circa £30m up to mid-June.

“More concerning is that the financial impacts on taxation, business rates and fees and charges incomes could take a considerable amount of time to recover, giving rise to a signifi-

Brighton: spending cuts

cantly greater medium term financial impact,” said officers.

In 2020/21 Brighton and Hove’s general fund, which covers day-to-day running costs, is mainly sourced from council tax £150m; fees and charges for services £110m; locally retained business rates £59m; and government grant £35m.

“This demonstrates that the council’s finances are very vulnerable in the current situation,” said officers. “Council tax revenues may well be impacted if people’s financial circumstances are impacted and more people claim council tax reduction discounts. Similarly, business rate revenues, excluding government support for expanded reliefs, could be impacted by the effect on the local economy and the visitor-driven economy.

“Most concerning are fees and charges as these are now a very large source of funding for council services. The pandemic will see many fees and charges being severely impacted by closures (e.g. Royal Pavilion), or reduced business and visitor activity (e.g. parking charges and fines), and/or the general impact on the economy (e.g. commercial rents and planning fees).”

Leicestershire County Council says its capital programme will have to be reprioritised, with some projects withdrawn or rephased.

“As the financial position going forward looks bleak, thought needs to be given as to what services can be reduced or even stopped if they are not considered critical,” said chief executive John Sinnott.

Leicestershire has received £27.6m from the Government but estimates that the final cost in 2020/21 could be about £65m.

The City of York Council has received Government support of £10.4m but the council’s initial estimate is that Covid-19 will cost it around £35m. Officers said cashflow issues could “mean that the council would have to concentrate on providing statutory services only”.

York will also reprioritise budgets. “It is quite possible that there will be some previous priorities that can’t be delivered in the same way in the light of our new operating context.”

Its capital programme, with a value of £560m over five years, will be reviewed. This includes projects such as the York Central development of railway land and

the city centre Castle Gateway project. “Whilst the [capital] programme is fully funded through a combination of Government grants, borrowing and other funding it is clear that a fundamental review of all schemes will be needed to assess any new risks as a result of the pandemic,” said officers. “This will include considering the overall purpose of the scheme and whether they are still financially viable given the risk to the overall economy. This is particularly crucial for those schemes that assumed the generation of capital receipts to fund expenditure.”

Northamptonshire County Council has received £30.5m of Government grant but is forecasting cost and income pressures of £57.5m. This includes market underwriting to support contractors of £13m, such as £1m for highway maintenance, £4.6m for home to school transport, £66,000 for subsidised bus routes, and £2.1m for concessionary fares.

Executive director of finance Barry Scarr said: “Given the council’s recent financial history, using reserves to cover the financial pressure is not an option, as the council has a limited level of financial resilience.

“The Government funding so far has been assessed as being adequate until at least the summer, therefore there is no immediate need for a Section 114 recommendation [of an unbalanced budget].

“Treasurers’ societies and CIPFA [the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy] are liaising with Government over the application of S114 in this scenario, as a significant number of councils could be affected.”

Wales: councils’ viability at risk?

Councils in Wales are warning of serious financial problems arising from Covid-19.

Monmouthshire Council says that, even after mitigating measures are taken, the risk is “high” that the council “becomes financially unsustainable, in whole or in part”.

Powys Council expects Covid-19 to cost the council £10m up to the end of June. Its general fund and budget management reserves amount to £13.2m. “It is clear that the reserves held will not be sufficient to cover the potential deficit incurred by the council should the current situation continue for a period of more than a few months,” said officers.

“Without further Government support the council may not be able to financially sustain

itself for the current financial year.

“The impact of the situation on the council is not unique to Powys, every council is facing the same financial difficulty. Individual circumstances will differ, the level of reserves held, the extent of commercial activity and the impact on the wider business and resident communities will be difference, but all are concerned as to their financial sustainability.”

A Welsh Government spokeswoman told LTT: “In Wales councils claim for additional expenditure incurred. We have already made £110m available to assist local authorities with additional costs and brought forward £526m of payments from May and June into April to support them.”

Emergency aid for Scots rapid transit?

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

THE SCOTTISH Government is in talks with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) and the City of Edinburgh Council about Covid-19 emergency funding for the Glasgow Subway and Edinburgh Tram system.

Patronage on both systems has plummeted since the Covid-19 lockdown was introduced in March.

SPT predicts a £5.6m deficit on its revenue budget if passenger numbers on the Glasgow subway remain 97 per cent below normal for 12 weeks. SPT’s assistant chief executive Valerie Davidson said: “Although additional funds have been announced for commercial transport operations, no additional support has been announced in Scotland for public sector transport operators. This matter has been raised at the highest level with Transport Scotland and discussions have commenced with a submission made for additional support.”

A Transport Scotland spokesman told LTT: “We appreciate the important role the subway and trams play in our two biggest cities and we are currently in detailed discussions with SPT and Edinburgh Trams to understand the implications of Covid-19. As part of these discussions we are exploring what appropriate support may be available.”

In Brief

Covid ‘could add to project costs’ Delays and social distancing requirements arising from Covid19 could add to the cost of transport projects. Nottinghamshire County Council leader Kay Cutts said the cost of building the Gedling Access Road could increase by up to 8 per cent.

“Early indications are that capital schemes will be delayed and hence there is a likelihood that overall costs will increase. Additional costs as a result of revised working practices due to social distancing will fall to the council.”

West Yorkshire Combined Authority is applying a ten per cent Covid-19 contingency to development costs for Transforming Cities Fund schemes.

LTT798 pp8-9.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 08:46 Page 4

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

8 News: Covid-19

Public ‘may be scared off buses’

Travel demand to week 8 of Covid-19 restrictions

BUSES

BUS OPERATORS and Bus Users UK are calling on the Government to change its messaging about public transport and Covid19 amid concern that the public will be scared-off using public transport even after the threat from Covid-19 diminishes.

A bus operator representative told LTT this week that the industry thought the Government’s messaging “could be a bit clearer”. “What we would like is for the Government to say, ‘you shouldn’t travel by bus if you have an alternative, to ensure that the limited capacity is available for those who need to travel by bus.’

“Sometimes the message comes across as ‘don’t travel by bus because it’s unsafe’.”

The charity Bus Users UK said current advice to avoid public transport ignored “the many people for whom walking, cycling and private transport are simply not options”.

“It also ignores the extensive work being done by the bus industry and DfT to make bus travel safe,” it said.

In Brief

Public wary of using public transport Many people are likely to drive, cycle and walk more rather than take public transport as Covid-19 travel restrictions are eased, according to a survey by Transport Focus. Interviews with 2,000 people between 1 and 3 May found that 60 per cent agreed with the statement ‘Once travel restrictions are relaxed, I will drive more rather than use public transport.’

Meanwhile, 51 per cent agreed that ‘once travel restrictions are relaxed, I will cycle and walk more rather than use public transport’.

Transport Focus is also exploring how communities of user types change their travel behaviour.

These include: rail commuters who are currently working from home but will probably go back early (such as those in retail); commuters who use multiple modes for their journeys; people with disabilities; bus users in particular areas (for example, where services have been withdrawn / those who pay by cash); season ticket holders who expect to change their working patterns; and new road users who have switched from public transport.

Car traffic volumes have started to climb from the low point seen between late March and mid-April, according to data released by the DfT this week.

Travel demand by all modes in England rose this week in response to the Government’s relaxation of some of the lockdown restrictions. Restrictions remain largely unchanged in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

From Wednesday (13th), people in England can now spend unlimited time outdoors. They can drive an unlimited

distance to outdoor spaces. On Sunday the Prime Minister encouraged those who can’t work from home in sectors such as manufacturing and construction to return to work.

The decision to ease restrictions was made because of a reduction in the level of deaths and confirmed cases of the virus, and concern about the economic damage the restrictions are causing.

The Department for Health and Social Care said on Wednesday that 33,186

people had died in the UK after contracting Covid-19. The figure is based on deaths in which a test has confirmed Covid-19.

The Office for National Statistics estimate of Covid-19 deaths is higher. It includes cases where Covid-19 is mentioned on the death certificate but was not confirmed with a test. The ONS fatality data on 1 May stood at 36,591, which was 9,082 more than the Department for Health data on the same day.

Social distance when you can, DfT tells public transport users

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

THE GOVERNMENT has published guidance for social distancing on public transport but left it to the industry to apply the detail. Passengers are also being advised to wear a face covering.

The release of the guidance came as the Government this week relaxed some of the lockdown restrictions in England, encouraging people in construction and manufacturing to return to work and allowing people unlimited time outdoors. Travel restrictions have not been eased in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The Government is still discouraging use of public transport, with the guidance on spending time outdoors saying: “The advice remains that everybody should continue to avoid public transport other than for essential journeys. Therefore, people should only make these journeys by cycling, walking or driving in a private vehicle.”

Guidance for transport opera-

tors states: “Anyone that does need to travel to work can use public transport if they need to, but they should be very strongly encouraged to use other forms of transport where possible.”

Transport secretary Grant Shapps said last weekend: “Even with public transport reverting to full service, once you take into account the two metre social distancing rule, there would only be effective capacity for one in ten passengers on many parts of the network.”

The guidance note for passengers recommends that people keep a two metre distance from each other. But it recognises that this “will not always be possible, for example when boarding or alighting, during security checks, on busier services, busier times of day, when walking through interchanges”.

“In these cases you should avoid physical contact, try to face away from other people, and keep the time you spend near others as short as possible.”

Passengers are advised to

wear a face covering, though this is optional. It is thought that face coverings may reduce the likelihood of someone infected with Covid-19 transmitting it other people. They are not thought likely to protect the wearer from contracting the virus.

The Government advises public transport operators to consider “rearranging, limiting or removing seating to try and ensure social distancing is observed”. This could include by blocking off seats close to a driver or other passengers, and removing face-to-face seating.

Floor tape, signs or paint could used in passenger areas to help people keep two metres apart.

Commenting on the guidance documents, shadow transport secretary Jim McMahon said: “This guidance fails to answer the fundamental question, how do you stop the transport network being overwhelmed when it’s currently running at a fraction of capacity?”

A bus operator told LTT the

DfT’s guidance was “helpful”.

“It sets high level principles.”

The Confederation of Passenger Transport is preparing more detailed guidance for bus operators that will build on the DfT’s advice. Individual operators are then expected to flesh it out further for their own businesses.

LTT understands that the latest industry thinking is that bus passengers should sit by a window and no one should sit in the seats immediately in front or behind.

London Travelwatch says train operators are considering more controlled access to platforms and creating ‘platform zones’ that hold a certain number of passengers. Social distancing will be the responsibility of passengers.

Train operator LNER is running a compulsory reservation system for all its trains.

Safer transport: guidance for operators is available at https://tinyurl.com/yab2uz9g Coronavirus (Covid 19): safer travel guidance for passengers is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd3hllnu

LTT798 pp8-9.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 08:46 Page 5

TransportXtra.com/ltt

News: Covid-19 9

Emergency support for light rail inadequate – city regions

LIGHT RAIL

by Andrew Forster

THE GOVERNMENT has announced allocations of a £30m Covid-19 emergency support fund for light rail and metro systems in England outside London. But two of recipients said the funding was not enough to cover the lost income arising from plummeting passenger numbers.

The funding is to support he cost of providing services on the five systems for 12 weeks, backdated to mid-March.

Weekly allocations are: • £970,000 for Metrolink in Greater Manchester; • £715,000 for the Tyne and Wear Metro • £309,000 for the Nottingham Express Transit system; • £176,000 for the West Midlands Metro • £111,000 for South Yorkshire Supertram; Transport for Greater Manch-

Nottingham: £309,000 a week

ester said the total value of its support package – £11.6m – left it with an estimated £4.3m shortfall over the 12-week period.

“Following the updated guidance [from the Government on the relaxation of lockdown restrictions] on Sunday, we’re currently in dialogue with the DfT over further funding,” said a spokeswoman.

Operators face the problem

Train operators to increase timetables

RAIL

PASSENGER TRAIN operators in England will increase services from Monday (18th) as people return to work following the easing of Covid-19 restrictions.

Services will also increase in Wales where lockdown restrictions have yet to be eased. But the Scottish Government has instructed ScotRail to defer plans to increase services because the country’s lockdown restrictions remain in place.

From Monday, Greater Anglia will run an amended Saturday timetable, with increased frequencies on the Great Eastern Main Line from Colchester, Clacton and Southend to London and the West Anglia Main Line from Cambridge to Liverpool Street.

Frequencies on the operator’s regional lines and NorwichLondon will remain unchanged.

Merseyrail Electrics will increases services half-hourly during the daytime.

In a report to Transport for the North’s Rail North committee meeting this week, officers said operator Northern was planning to reintroduce its pre-existing December 2019 timetable.

The officers said TransPennine

Express would focus on increasing ‘travel to work’ services rather than services mainly used by leisure passengers.

ScotRail had planned to increase services on Monday but transport secretary Michael Matheson has ordered it to defer the changes because the Scottish Government has yet to relax its lockdown restrictions. Ministers continue to advise people to stay at home.

A Transport Scotland spokesman told LTT: “It is clear that we must plan to increase capacity in advance of demand, not the other way round. Therefore the cabinet secretary has instructed ScotRail to prepare a series of future service increases.

It is anticipated these will be implemented ahead of need.”

Transport for Wales will increase its rail services on Monday up to about 65 per cent of normal on Monday. Like Scotland, the Welsh Government has yet to relax travel restrictions and is continuing to advise people to stay at home.

A Transport for Wales spokesman said service levels were being increased so that the rail system was “as well prepared as we can be for when restrictions are eased”.

that the cost of increasing service levels as lockdown restrictions are eased may not be covered by fare revenues. The Government’s advice remains for people to avoid using public transport.

Nexus, the operator of the Tyne and Wear Metro, said the £8.6m it would receive covered about 80 per cent of the budget shortfall of more than £10m resulting from the collapse of fare income.

Councillor Martin Gannon, leader of Gateshead Council and chair of the North East Joint Transport Committee, said: “While I welcome the funding package announced by the Government, it is quite simply not enough. Metro is losing close to £1m a week and we need all of our costs covered, not just 80 per cent.

“Metro, through Nexus, is owned by the Tyne and Wear councils who are predicting massive budget deficits as a

result of this pandemic and cannot afford to pick up this bill.

So we will be going back to the DfT to ask for more.”

Managing director of Transport North East, Tobyn Hughes, said: “We also have funding shortfalls on the Shields Ferry and in other areas. We will have to look at our other activities, saving money and redirecting funding where we can.

“We do not expect to return to pre-crisis levels of ridership for many months to come, and this will continue to create a financial challenge long into the future.

We look forward to working with the Government to ensure that the Metro is put on a longterm financially sustainable footing.”

Nexus is also anxious about long-term Government funding for the Tyne and Wear Metro after April 2021. It expected an announcement in the March Budget but nothing was forthcoming.

TfL targets return to normal service levels

LONDON

TRANSPORT FOR London wants to return public transport service levels to normal “as soon as possible”. The action will make social distancing easier as Covid-19 restrictions ease.

The Government’s instruction for people in sectors such as construction and manufacturing to return to work this week has resulted in more people using the capital’s transport networks.

TfL said “public transport should be avoided wherever possible”. It wants to keep demand on buses and the Tube to 85 per cent below normal.

Up to this week, Tube patronage was depressed by 95 per cent and bus patronage by 85 per cent.

TfL said it would “return the number of buses and trains running to as close to 100 per cent as soon as possible”. It has been operating up to 60 per cent of Tube services and more than 80 per cent of bus services.

“TfL is working closely with staff and the trade unions with the intention of, by 18 May, increasing service levels to around 85 per cent on the bus network, at least 70 per cent on the Tube and London Overground (in line with national rail services), 80 per cent

on the DLR and a full service on TfL Rail.”

Some of the 37 Tube stations that have been closed for several weeks are to reopen, though some will remain closed, including stations with lift-only access to platforms because two metre social distancing is not possible.

TfL said the two-metre social distancing guideline meant that only around 13-15 per cent of the normal number of passengers on the Tube and bus networks can be carried, even when 100 per cent of services are operating.

Two metre floor markings have been installed on platforms at stations. Hand sanitizer points will start to be introduced across the transport network over the coming weeks.

London Travelwatch said this week that TfL was planning to put in place queueing systems outside stations where practical and necessary.

“TfL say it is impractical for their staff to enforce social distancing guidelines and admit that with the capacity constraints they face, there will be times when social distancing is simply not possible,” said the passenger watchdog. “TfL told us that it will be up to customers to decide if a train is too full.”

Bus grant puzzle explained

BUSES

DIFFERENT RATES of concessionary fare reimbursement and the lower – or complete absence – of minimum bus service level specifications in Scotland and Wales, help explain why their governments have not set up dedicated Covid-19 emergency funds for the bus industry like the one operating in England.

The DfT launched a £166.8m Covid-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) for bus operators in England in March to pay for them to provide 40-50 per cent of scheduled commercial mileage (LTT 03 & 17 Apr). The arrangement ensures that services are provided for key workers and for others to get to food shops and other essential services.

The DfT grant runs alongside continuing payments of Bus Service Operator Grant and the Department’s request that local authorities continue to pay operators concessionary travel reimbursement and tendered service support at pre-Covid-19 levels.

The Scottish and Welsh governments have similar policies for the continuation of existing bus grant payments.

But neither devolved administration has set up a grant equivalent to CBSSG. A bus industry insider told LTT that the lack of an emergency grant scheme in Scotland was the product of it having a “slightly more generous concessionary fares reimbursement scheme” than England, and the Scottish Government setting a Covid-19 mileage ‘floor’ of only 30 per cent, compared to the 40-50 per cent in England.

In Wales, the Welsh Government has not imposed any minimum mileage requirement on operators.

Consequently, operators have generally reduced mileage by a larger amount than in England in order to break even.

The bus industry is in talks with the Scottish and Welsh governments about funding to deliver services as lockdown restrictions ease.

LTT798 page 10.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 09:17 Page 4

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

10 News: Covid-19

‘Attach CO2 conditions to airline support’

COVID-19

ANY GOVERNMENT support for the airline industry to help it through the Covid-19 pandemic could be unlawful without climate conditions attached, lawyers and campaigners have told the Government.

Lawyers acting for climate change charity Possible have written to the Chancellor saying that support without conditions to protect the climate could leave the government open to legal challenge. The lawyers are from law firm Leigh Day, which won the Court of

Cut road-building and reform road tax after Covid, says CCC

ENVIRONMENT

SPENDING ON broadband and active travel should be prioritised over road-building as the economy is rebuilt following Covid-19, the Committee on Climate Change has told ministers. It also hints that road transport taxation should rise.

CCC chairman Lord Deben has written to the Prime Minister and ministers including transport secretary Grant Shapps advising how climate policy can play a “core part” in the recovery.

“There is an opportunity to embed new social norms, especially for travel, that benefit well-being, improve productivity, and reduce emissions,” says Deben. “Government can lead the

way through its own operations (e.g. encouraging home working and remote medical consultations), through public communications, and through infrastructure provision (e.g. prioritising broadband investments over the road network, improving safety for cyclists), and investing in measures to facilitate social distancing on public transport.

“Restrictions on movement during this crisis and the potential for longer-lasting social distancing and home working measures could mean a radically different context for transport policy.

“Dedicating safe spaces for walking and cycling, more bike parking and support for shared bikes can be tied to new public attitudes towards walking, cycling

and green spaces.

“We should ensure that home working remains a widespread option; higher investment in resilient digital technology including 5G and fibre broadband should therefore be prioritised over strengthening the roads network.”

With taxation likely to have to rise to pay for the Government’s extra Covid-19 spending, Deben said the tax system should be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Changes in tax policy can aid the transition to net-zero emissions. Many sectors of the UK economy do not currently bear the full costs of emitting greenhouse gases.

“Revenue could be raised by

setting or raising carbon prices for these sectors, and low global oil prices provide an opportunity to offset changes in relative prices without hurting consumers.

“The UK’s future carbon pricing mechanism should be designed to ensure that an appropriate price for carbon is maintained even in times of external shocks, for example through a well-designed floor price.”

Deben said support for carbonintensive sectors hit by the virus “should be contingent on them taking real and lasting action on climate change”.

The aviation sector has shed thousands of jobs, though the Government has not implemented a bespoke aviation sector deal.

Stagecoach wants Air quality-Covid 19 post-Covid bus vision ‘link’ sparks debate

BUSES

Aviation: funding ‘must have strings attached’

Appeal case against the Government’s Airports National Policy Statement in February (LTT 06 Mar).

“Any bailouts failing to adhere to the UK’s net zero by 2050 target, or its international commitments to help limit warming to 1.5 degrees, would be open to legal challenge,” said Possible. It wants airlines to commit to introducing a Frequent Flyer Levy as a condition of support.

Leigh Day’s letter to the Government says: “Such is the significance of the climate change impacts of the aviation industry prior to the Covid-19 crisis, we consider that any relevant statutory powers would require the Government to impose environmental conditions of access to financial aid for the aviation industry.

“Otherwise, the Government would be taking positive action to facilitate and enable the domestic aviation industry to return to its previous very harmful levels of emissions and other impacts, contrary to the Government’s climate change objectives.”

BUS OPERATOR Stagecoach has called for a joint strategy between industry and the Government to secure the bus sector’s future after the Covid-19 outbreak ends.

Chief executive Martin Griffiths outlined a six-point plan calling for: • a joint operational and investment plan developed by industry and Government to ensure Britain’s bus networks transition from the emergency levels of lockdown to more comprehensive links that support the country’s recovery. This should include transitional support for transport operators as passenger numbers take time to grow.

• radical, permanent changes by national and local government to infrastructure and planning. Road and street space should be prioritised for walking, cycling and high capacity public transport over private cars, with a fundamental reallocation of limited space and steps to encourage first and last mile connections.

‘Mobility hubs’ rather than private car parking spaces should be requirements for planning new housing developments, offering public transport connectivity, electric charging points and cycling.

• wide-ranging measures to deliver on the Government’s levelling up agenda for regions outside London, including new strategies for towns and cities to

rethink high streets, promote local spending and create new attractions • lifestyle changes, particularly around travel, as well as a focus on technology to address the damaging impact of transport emissions.

• a ‘grown-up conversation’ to reexamine fiscal policy as the Government considers how to pay for the coronavirus pandemic and the necessary actions the country has taken. This would include a complete transformation in how transport journeys are taxed. A move to a system where the polluter pays and sustainable behaviours and use of buses, trams and trains, as well as active travel, are rewarded to make these modes more affordable and accessible to all.

• targeted investment in decarbonisation, including sustainable transport and infrastructure, to help restart the economy, put Britain at the forefront of the green revolution and speed up recovery. Maximising the potential of Britain's world-class and world-leading bus manufacturing sector by accelerating Government investment in electric bus fleets will deliver a cleaner environment, improved health and cement Britain's position as a clean-tech leader.

Griffiths cited market research by consultant SYSTRA suggesting that public transport use in Britain's cities could be 20 per cent lower than pre-Covid-19 levels after lockdown ends.

AIR QUALITY

US RESEARCHERS claim to have found a link between air pollution and Covid-19 death rates. But a driver group in the UK has questioned the work’s credibility.

The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health says people with Covid-19 who live in US regions with high levels of air pollution are more likely to die from the disease than people who live in less polluted areas.

The study has been published before being peer reviewed and the researchers revised down their prediction of the connection after the media had already reported their original findings.

The researchers looked for a link between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5) – generated largely from fuel combustion from cars, refineries, and power plants – and the risk of death from Covid-19 in the U.S. They looked at more than 3,000 counties across the country, comparing levels of fine particulate air pollution with coronavirus death counts for each area. Adjusting for population size, hospital beds, number of people tested for Covid-19, weather, and socioeconomic and behavioural variables such as obesity and smoking, the researchers found that a small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in the Covid-19 death

rate.

“For example, someone who lives for decades in a county with high levels of fine particulate pollution is 8 per cent [originally they said 15 per cent] more likely to die from Covid19 than someone who lives in a region that has just one unit (one microgram per cubic meter) less of such pollution.”

There has also been speculation that the high levels of deaths from Covid-19 in northern Italy may be associated with the high levels of pollution in places such as Milan and the wider Po Valley.

Paul Biggs, environment spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers, questioned the findings of the Harvard research.

“The claim is bizarre given the fact that India and China have air pollution that is many times higher than the likes of the USA or the UK, but there is no hard evidence for any impact on Covid-19 death rates.

“Even in normal times the epidemiological evidence supporting adverse health effects due to PM2.5 in 21st century clean air is weak, but epidemiology has sunk to a new low in trying to statistically link Covid19 with air pollution.

“Even though Harvard have quietly rolled back the claim from 15 per cent to 8 per cent, the chair of the US Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has stated that the Harvard model has no basis in reality.”

LTT798 page 11.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 09:13 Page 5

TransportXtra.com/ltt

News 11

East-west rail tunnel touted to ease Gtr Manchester’s rail capacity crunch

RAIL

by Andrew Forster

A RAIL tunnel under Manchester is the best way to relieve the notoriously congested two-track Castlefield corridor between Deansgate and Piccadilly stations, according to a new report.

Revisiting High Speed North was commissioned by pro-HS2 organisation Greengauge 21 and is authored by Ian Wray, a visiting professor at Liverpool University’s Heseltine Institute; transport consultant David Thrower; and Greengauge 21 founder Jim Steer.

The report revisits ideas originally set out in the High Speed North paper of 2014 authored by the late planning expert Sir Peter Hall, Wray and Thrower.

Greengauge hopes its new report will influence the Government’s new integrated rail plan for the Midlands and the North. This is reviewing Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR), HS2 Phase 2b and other possible investments (LTT 21 Feb), and will be informed by a piece of work by the National Infrastructure Commission (LTT 17 Apr).

Wray, Thrower and Steer say the delivery of rail improvements in the north of England need to be accelerated. “As they stand, plans for NPR have become intertwined with HS2, utilising significant parts of currently proposed HS2 investment north of Crewe. In consequence the timescales, uncertainties and risks associated with delivering NPR are now joined by the timescales, uncertainties and risks connected with HS2 Phase 2b.

“Taken together, these projects now have a current price tag of circa £80bn and completion cannot be expected before the 2040s. This is just too late.”

They acknowledge spending pressures, noting that the £80bn cost of these projects “may not be acceptable post-Covid”.

“Moreover, cost estimates for HS2 Phase 1, made at the stage of development now reached by Phase 2b and NPR, increased substantially later.”

They continue: “Basically, the North’s rail network is over-loaded right now.

Some solutions may be found in the short-term, perhaps cutting some services so that those that remain can be operated with acceptable levels of reliability.

“But what comes next? Where is the medium-term plan to address the problems of rail network congestion, readily apparent at Manchester, but incipient in other major cities where central stations and approaches have inadequate capacity?

“While it is true that other more modest schemes exist that could be delivered earlier (the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade (TRU) being the prime example), they too do not tackle these network problems.”

The paper identifies three priorities: relieving congestion on the overloaded Manchester rail network; providing more city terminal capacity in places such as

The Castlefield corridor between Manchester Piccadilly and Deansgate is a major bottleneck

Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool; and accommodating rail freight.

To ease capacity pressures in Greater Manchester, the report champions an east-west tunnel from Ordsall in Salford to an underground station at Piccadilly.

The tunnel would be used by interregional express trains from Chester and North Wales, Liverpool, Blackpool, Barrow and Glasgow in the west to Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Hull, York and Newcastle in the east.

“Connected to the existing railway on the southeast side of the bigger Piccadilly long-distance station, it [the tunnel] would provide enhanced connections to Sheffield as well as via the future NPR to Leeds, Hull and Newcastle and via HS2 to Manchester Airport, Birmingham and London.

“This need not wait until the full Phase 2b and NPR plan comes along.”

A tunnel would enable the existing two-track surface Castlefield corridor serving Deansgate, Oxford Road and Piccadilly to be dedicated to city-region rail services. Network Rail says this currently has capacity to accommodate 13 trains per hour each way, though the actual number of trains operated rose to 15 in 2018.

Says Greengauge: “With a unified train fleet in the style of Merseyrail Electrics,

this corridor could become Manchester’s Thameslink, with computer-controlled 24 trains per hour through the central section of a wider network.

“These operations could be transferred to Transport for Greater Manchester in a long-term concession, equivalent to the successful Merseyrail electrics operation.”

The new Greengauge report is not the only piece of work looking at how to resolve Greater Manchester’s rail capacity problems.

Network Rail is undertaking its own analysis of options for the Castlefield corridor. Meanwhile, last year Manchester City Council received a report from consultant Bechtel suggesting that HS2 and NPR services could be accommodated in an underground station at Piccadilly. The current plans of HS2 Ltd are for HS2 services to run into new surface platforms on the north side of the station.

The new Greengauge report also discusses freight traffic on the Castlefield corridor. Trains serve the Trafford Park container terminal to the west of Deansgate. Sub-national transport body Transport for the North recently asked the DfT to investigate options to remove these trains from the corridor (LTT 06 Mar).

Says Greengauge: “Trafford Park terminal is at present only accessible by rail from the east (i.e. by traversing Manchester city centre). Although this is unhelpful for passenger services, enforced closure of the depot would be undesirable.”

They suggest either: • Building a replacement freight facility more readily served off the West Coast Main Line (they suggest the former Parkside colliery site near Newton-le-Willows); or • An access route from the West Coast Main Line to the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester line, so that the Trafford Park terminal can be accessed from the west. “Since [some of] these trains are electrically-hauled, this would also require electrification of this second line between the two major cities via Warrington, which is desirable in any event.”

Greengauge’s report is less detailed

about enhancements elsewhere in the north of England. “The central stations in the major northern stations are simply running out of platform space and need more capacity and better approaches,” it says.

“Strong travel markets such as Harrogate-Leeds currently operate with only two trains/hour, but much greater use would be made of a service with doubled frequency that becomes close to a ‘turnup-and-go’ facility.”

The report discusses the possible junctions, or ‘touchpoints’ between the NPR and HS2 networks, which have been identified by the DfT and TfN. Wray, Thrower and Steer note the “possible replacement of the connection at Touchpoint 2 [east of Leeds] with an extended version of Touchpoint 3 [between Sheffield and Leeds] to provide a running connection northwards from HS2 to Wakefield and Bradford”.

In March, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority reported that the NPR co-clients, Transport for the North and the DfT, were investigating the case for a Clayton North Junction that would allow northbound trains from HS2 to access an upgraded Doncaster to Leeds route via Wakefield, and with a re-instated Wortley Curve to enable direct access to Bradford.

(LTT 23 Mar).

Wray, Thrower and Steer says that other matters still needing to be resolved include whether: • NPR should be routed via Bradford, with an underground through high-speed station in the city centre • a high-speed route between Warrington and Liverpool “should be a completely new high-speed alignment or an upgrade of an existing rail corridor” They also discuss other rail freight capacity challenges in the north of England. “Getting freight capacity across city centres is not in the remit [of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade]. It remains unclear whether in the longer term Northern Powerhouse Rail would help. That would provide capacity relief to existing trans-Pennine routes, but it does not create cross-city routes for freight.

“The extension of HS2 northwards will set fresh challenges for freight in the North. The extra capacity created on the network south of Crewe by HS2 Phase 1/2a is not matched by spare capacity available north of Crewe.

“The gains of HS2, in terms of released capacity for rail freight, risk being wasted unless some measures to increase track capacity north of Crewe are made in the period to 2030.

“This is likely to involve some fourtracking of the Crewe-Weaver Junction section of the West Coast Main Line.”

Revisiting High-Speed North is available at https://tinyurl.com/y75cogfh

LTT798 page 12.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 09:32 Page 4

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

12 News

Inverness interchange proposed STATIONS

A NEW transport interchange could be built at Inverness railway station.

An interchange steering group is likely to be set up, comprising Network Rail, Transport Scotland, Highland Council, and Hitrans, the Highlands and Islands transport partnership.

Hitrans says Network Rail has purchased a number of parcels of land around the station with funding from Transport Scotland.

In a report to the Hitrans board, partnership manager Frank Roach said: “The emphasis will be on low/no carbon transport, and should aim to include electric/nondiesel trains; electric and hydrogen buses; electric taxis with induction charging; pedestrians and cycling including e-bike facilities; fuelling for hydrogen vehicles; freight interchange; last mile electric cart delivery; rail maintenance facilities etc. Car parking should be limited.”

Retail and other commercial development would be needed to make the proposal viable.

Roach told LTT there was a case for additional rail platforms because existing capacity is tight and new services are planned, such as Inverness to Aberdeen increasing to hourly. He is also keep to explore a cross-city service from Tain to Elgin that would require a platform on the Inverness north curve.

The interchange would replace the city’s bus station, which is close to the railway station. The two are poorly connected.

In Brief

Faslane workers to be quizzed about rail Workers at the Faslane naval base in Argyll & Bute are to be surveyed to see if they would use a rail service if a station was built on the nearby West Highland Line.

Faslane employs about 8,500 people. “Traffic congestion is a real issue getting into the base, “ Hitrans partnership manager Frank Roach told LTT. Hitrans has ruled out building a branch into the site, instead favouring a station on the West Highland Line.

Roach said it could be “a couple of hundred yards from the north gate”. A special commuter service would be operated.

Sustrans prepares to reclassify 1,000 miles of NCN in Scotland CYCLING

by Andrew Forster

SUSTRANS IS to reclassify about 1,000 miles of the National Cycle Network in Scotland, removing them from the NCN and marketing them for long distance cycle tourism.

The proposal stems from Sustrans’ review of the NCN in 2018.

At that time, the network comprised 16,575 miles across the UK, made up of 5,273 miles of traffic-free paths and 11,302 miles of on-road sections.

The review aimed to create a network capable of being used by a sensible 12-year old travelling alone. Routes were assessed using a scoring system that considered their surface, traffic flow, signage and safety.

Sustrans concluded that, for the UK as a whole, one per cent of the NCN was very good, 53 per cent was good, 4 per cent was poor, and 42 per cent very poor.

Of the on-road sections, 62 per cent – or 6,962 miles – were classified as very poor, and only 4,125 miles as good.

The main issues of concern were vehicle speeds and traffic volumes.

The final report of the review said: “Quality is more important than quantity. If parts of the network prove unfeasible to make safe or accessible then we will need a process to declassify them.”

Sustrans’ long-term aim is to make more of the NCN trafficfree, with an ambition to create a further 5,000 traffic-free miles of route by 2040, in effect doubling the traffic-free network to 10,000

The 2018 network review

miles. For the remaining on-road sections of the network, it wants local authorities to implement 40mph speed limits in rural areas and 20mph in urban areas.

Following the review, Sustrans conducted more in-depth research on the NCN and its quality. This has now resulting in the charity proposing that 38.4 per cent (996 miles) of the NCN in Scotland should be reclassified or removed.

The vast majority – 976 miles – is proposed for reclassification, which will see it become part of ‘named routes’, which will continue to be promoted. Only 20 miles are proposed for complete withdrawal.

All the affected sections are understood to be on-road, with median traffic speeds of 40mph or above, or 35mph or above in the case of A roads or other high traffic roads.

Charlotte Otter, senior communications officer for Sustrans Scotland, told LTT this week that the changes were all about ensur-

ing that routes met user expectations.

“It’s all about getting a consistency of experience and user expectation, marrying up the right type of route with the user,” she said.

The named routes will be longdistance routes that appeal to cycle tourism, a different audience to those who use the NCN for more local trips.

The named routes will not appear on maps of the NCN but Sustrans will continue to promote them via its website. It is also working with Visit Scotland on a project to promote the named routes, including to overseas visitors. Otter said there would be at least five named routes in Scotland. Sustrans is working with partners including local authorities, regional transport partnerships to discuss possible names.

The changes are due to take place this summer.

Board members of Hitrans, the Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership, were presented last month with a map showing the sections of the NCN across Scotland that are planned for reclassification.

“The full detail of which routes will be removed and which ones reclassified has not yet been shared by Sustrans,” said a report authored by Hitrans partnership manager Neil Macrae and active travel officer Vikki Telfer.

“Hitrans recognises the need to ensure that the NCN offers a high quality, consistent and safer experience for users if we are to encourage active travel,” they said. But they added there was

“an urgent need to address the outcome of this review that will result in either the removal or reclassification of almost all the NCN within the Hitrans area”.

All four numbered NCN routes in the Hitrans area will be affected: the NCN1, NCN7, NCN78 and NCN780.

“NCN1 will be disrupted by the removal or reclassification of the entire route from Tain to Scrabster, and all of Orkney.

NCN7 will be disrupted by the removal or reclassification of onroad sections between Perth and Inverness.

“NCN78 (Caledonia Way) has significant on-road sections highlighted for removal or reclassification between Campbeltown and Oban, and from Fort Augustus to Inverness.

“Route 780 (Hebridean Way) will be entirely reclassified or removed from the NCN.” “Whilst these sections will no longer be part of the NCN or appear on NCN mapping, the entirety of the route will continue to be mapped by Ordinance Survey and appear on their publications and app,” said Macrae and Telfer.

Macrae told LTT : “We support their aim of a consistent network.

It’s not a case of us being ‘up in arms’ [at the proposals] but we want to ensure they do enough to mitigate [any negative effects].

The NCN brings significant economic benefits to the Highlands and Islands through cycle tourism.”

Long sections of the NCN in the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway will also be reclassified.

Bridge or tunnel studied to replace ferry

ROADS

INVESTIGATIONS ARE underway into the idea of replacing a ferry service in northwest Scotland with a tunnel or a bridge.

The Corran ferry, operated by Highland Council, crosses Loch Linnhe at the Corran Narrows, southwest of Fort William. The loch at this point is about 300 metres wide. The ferry connects the A82 Glasgow-Fort William road on the east side with the A861 on the west and is said to be the busiest single-vessel ferry crossing in Europe.

Consultant Stantec has explored the idea of replacing the ferry with a bridge or tunnel for

Highland Council, the Highlands and Islands transport partnership (Hitrans), and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

“Significant investment in new vessels, infrastructure and human resource is required in the near future, prompting the question as to whether a ferry or a fixed link represents the best long-term value for money solution when considered in the widest sense (i.e. social and economic in addition to financial outcomes),” says Stantec.

Six bridge designs have been assessed, with capital costs ranging from £42m to £78m after applying 66 pre cent optimism bias. A tunnel has a cost range of

£66m-£108m, again with 66 per cent optimism bias.

Hitrans partnership manager Neil Macrae told LTT the report had been submitted to Transport Scotland with a view to the project being considered in the Scottish Government’s ongoing strategic transport projects review.

Stantec says it is “reasonable to conclude that a Corran Narrows fixed link will lead to significant traffic generation”.

“This is likely to be due to a combination of: (i) latent demand for journeys that are currently suppressed by the limitations associated with the ferry service – including peninsula residents making more frequent trips to

Fort William and elsewhere to access services; (ii) increased visitor numbers, particularly in terms of ‘unplanned’ or spontaneous trips; and (iii) additional journeys generated by 24-hour connectivity.”

A fixed link could support population retention and growth, “although any effects would be long-term and difficult to attribute directly to the crossing given that many factors impact on population numbers and structure”.

Macrae said work would now be undertaken on the economic benefits of a fixed link. Bridge heights will be examined to protect shipping. A public consultation is also planned.

LTT798 page 13.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 09:39 Page 5

TransportXtra.com/ltt

News 13

Axe to fall on Go-Ahead’s lossmaking DRT pilot in Oxford BUSES

GO-AHEAD SUBSIDIARY the Oxford Bus Company will withdraw its PickMeUp demand responsive bus service on 20 June.

PickMeUp was launched in June 2018 as a two-year pilot to improve connectivity in east Oxford. Using an app, passengers could summon a minibus to pick them up on a street corner of their choice to go to a bespoke destination.

It is the latest DRT service to attract a blaze of publicity only to then be scrapped after operators found it uneconomic. RATP withdrew Slide in Bristol, Ford

scrapped its entire Chariot business, and FirstGroup ended its myFirstMile service in Bristol after a trial.

Arriva continues to operate its Click operations in Leicestershire, Watford and Liverpool but has withdrawn from Sittingbourne (LTT 06 Dec 19). ViaVan operates in Milton Keynes.

More than 38,000 people downloaded the PickMeUp app and more than 300,000 journeys were made on the service.

“The service did not reach the commercial milestones required to make it sustainable beyond the two-year pilot, even though not all demand could be met,” said the Oxford Bus Company.

It said it had “exhausted all external funding avenues to make it viable”, adding that the service required support from councils and businesses. “Unfortunately, local authority support was not made available and passenger numbers could not reach required targets as congestion slowed buses down to 9mph just at the time demand was at its greatest.

“Whilst some businesses have been very supportive of the service, others decided not to support it as they did not see it as their responsibility to do so for the greater good of Oxford.”

Phil Southall, the Oxford Bus Company’s managing director,

thanked the Oxford Science Park for its “steadfast financial and promotional support”, and Horspath Parish Council, which also provided funding.

“We have taken a lot of learnings from PickMeUp and our parent company Go Ahead Group are looking to introduce the service in other areas of the country where it could prove to be more viable.

“At this stage it has not been successful in Oxford. This may change in the future if congestion management measures are introduced and a workplace parking levy could top-up the funding required. Greater public sector support will be required.”

Cambs CA consults on CAM vision NR probes Beeching fund plan

BUSES

THE CAMBRIDGESHIRE and Peterborough Combined Authority is consulting on its vision for an 87.5-mile busway network, dubbed the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM).

CAM is being championed by James Palmer, the combined authority’s elected mayor. The network would be focused on Cambridge, with branches serving St Neots, Alconbury, Mildenhall, Haverhill, Hauxton and Waterbeach. The intention is for services to operate in tunnels within Cambridge city centre.

Subject to planning permission, approvals and funding, the CA says regional routes could become operational “from 2024 onwards” with the city tunnel section following “by 2029”.

A consultation on the tunnelled sections was launched at the end of February and ran to 3 April (LTT 06 Mar). The new consultation covers the new CAM sub-strategy of the CA’s recently approved local transport plan.

According to the combined authority, CAM will provide a “best-in-class passenger experience” in terms of “journey time reliability, smoothness of ride, vehicle and stop quality, level boarding, fully electric operation and off-vehicle ticketing”.

The “default assumption” is that it will operate on segregated routes.

Although the word autonomous appears in its name, CAM is unlikely to be driverless initially. “To enhance safety and reduce operating costs it is desirable for CAM to become driverless once autonomous vehi-

CAM: network could be shaped by new housing plans

cles have been approved for use in the UK and the appropriate safety regulations have been established,” says the combined authority.

The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) has been preparing the business cases for the routes within Cambridge (excluding the tunnel sections). The GCP comprises Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and the University of Cambridge.

In February, mayor Palmer told the GCP to cease work on the route between Cambourne and Cambridge, saying he did not support the scheme as currently proposed (LTT 03 Apr). One reason Palmer gave for his request was the Government’s recent announcement that the East West Rail route between Bedford and Cambridge will run via Cambourne.

The CAM sub-strategy says the plans for both the Cambourne and the Waterbeach CAM routes, that were being led by the GCP, need revisiting. “National govern-

ment’s commitment to an East West Rail route and proposed new heavy rail improvements and/or station developments at St Neots; West of Cambourne; Cambridge South; and Waterbeach will need to be taken into account in developing [CAM] business cases.

“This indicates the need for an interim review of emerging business cases for the Cambourne to Cambridge and Cambridge to Waterbeach routes.”

A major new community is planned for Waterbeach, to the north of Cambridge. This includes a new Waterbeach railway station to replace the existing station on the Cambridge to Ely line.

The shape of the CAM network could be influenced by the Government’s housing policy.

In his March budget the Chancellor announced that the Government is to examine the case for up to four new development corporations in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, at Bedford, St Neots/Sandy, Cambourne and Cambridge, including “plans to explore the case for a New Town at Cambridge”.

Says the CAM consultation: “It is therefore important that the CAM scheme is adaptable and helps to meet the travel demands emerging from these new developments.”

Consultation runs to 17 July.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough local transport plan: Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro sub-strategy is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybx72euw

RAIL

THE GOVERNMENT’S proposed programme to reopen railways closed in the Beeching era could upset the rail industry’s own investment priorities.

Newly released minutes of Network Rail’s March board meeting state: “The chief financial officer discussed with the board: spending plans for enhancements and the extent to which they might be affected by the Government’s plans to review some of the local rail services cut and stations closed by the 1960s Beeching Review.”

Sixty proposals for railway reopenings in England have been submitted to the ideas funding stream of the DfT’s new Restoring Your Railway fund (LTT 01 May).

Minutes of NR’s January board meeting, which have also just been released, record a discussion about the rail investment implications of the new Government led by Boris Johnson, which was elected in December.

Discussing enhancement projects that could be progressed through the early stages of the project cycle, the board considered “where the intersection was between projects that the rail industry might consider a priority and projects that might be considered a political priority”.

The board also resolved that “showing schemes by parliamentary constituency would be helpful”.

Leeds to host two DRT trials

DRT

WEST YORKSHIRE Combined Authority is planning two trials of demand responsive transport in east Leeds, the first to be held in the conurbation.

The three-year trials could start next year. Services will be accessed through a smartphone app, with routing algorithms matching vehicles with demand.

One operation will encompass the Aire Valley in southeast Leeds, providing links from the East End Park, Cross Green and Richmond Hill residential areas to employment areas in the Aire Valley Enterprise Zone. It will also serve destinations outside the operating zone, such as Leeds bus station, the Asda superstore at Killingbeck and the Morrisons superstore at Hunslet.

“This area currently has very poor access to supermarkets and the DRT service will seek to address this, as well as providing improved access to health centres, St James Hospital and local employment opportunities,” said a report to the WYCA’s investment committee this week.

The second DRT service will cover the Crossgates area on the eastern edge of the city, including the East Leeds Extension development area.

The service is expected to support access from 5,000 new homes to local economic and employment centres, transport hubs, health and education facilities.

The £2.23m cost of the pilots will be funded by £763,000 from the Leeds public transport investment programme, £700,000 from the integrated transport block, and £768,000 from Section 106 developer contributions.

In Brief

Northants bus operator closes Northamptonshire bus operator Diamond Coaches has ceased trading. The company operated routes between Kettering and Brambleside and Kettering to Raunds on Mondays to Saturdays, as well as a handful of routes that operated one day a week or less. Stagecoach has taken over the Kettering to Raunds route.

LTT798_ad pages p14,16,26-31.qxp_LTT_ads_master 14/05/2020 14:44 Page 14

14

LTT798 15 May -28 May 2020

LTT798 page 15.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 09:53 Page 15

TransportXtra.com/ltt

News 15

In Brief

‘Capture land value uplift to fund transport infrastructure’

INFRASTRUCTURE

by Andrew Forster

LANDOWNERS ARE making huge profits from selling land for development, while the public sector is left with the cost of providing too much of the associated infrastructure such as new roads, says a new report.

Poets (Planning Oxfordshire’s Environment and Transport Sustainably) – a group of Oxfordshire-based academics and retired local government officers – wants the Government to change the rules so that more of the land value uplift arising from development is captured for infrastructure funding.

“Landowners are benefitting inordinately from selling their land for development, keeping about 50 per cent of the increase in land value arising from the granting of planning permission,” says the report by Katie Barrett, Riki Therivel, and Ian Walker.

“In April 2017 average values of farmland in Oxfordshire were £25,000 a hectare, compared to estimated residential land values of between £4.03m in the Vale of White Horse [district of Oxfordshire] and £6.2m a hectare in Oxford.”

The report points out that councils have to bid to Government funding pots such as the Housing Infrastructure Fund to secure funding for crucial pieces of infrastructure to support development.

“Previous attempts to secure more of the uplift in land value by introducing some form of development taxation have, in

Greenfield housing: big profits for landowners

the main, been unsuccessful because landowners held onto land in the hope that a change of government would lead to the repeal of the legislation: in the event this is what happened,” say the report authors.

“The main exception was the first generation of new towns in the 1940s, which owed much of their success to the ability of development corporations to acquire land at, or near to, existing use value.

“They were able to capture uplifts in land value from the infrastructure they developed and subsequent economic activity, to reinvest in the local community.”

A key legislative barrier to change is the Land Compensation Act 1961 that “enshrined the right of landowners to achieve ‘hope value’ for their land when it is compulsorily purchased by a public authority, based on the amount they can expect with any justifiable prospect of planning permission”.

Today, the main mechanisms

by which councils secure infrastructure funding are the Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

“Neither are specifically designed to capture uplift in land value,” says the report, noting that in 2016/17, local authorities and developers agreed S106 and CIL contributions of £6bn to the cost of infrastructure and affordable housing in England. This did “not get close to providing all the infrastructure or social and environmental benefits needed”.

The authors acknowledge that development also brings additional tax revenues to the Government through corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty and business rates.

They conclude: “The Government needs to take action to secure more funding from the uplift in land value. Whilst the effectiveness of S106 and the CIL process must be kept under review, changes are needed that go beyond simply improving existing mechanisms.”

The report’s recommendations include changing the Land Compensation Act 1961 to remove compensation to landowners based on “hope value” and giving clear guidance on how “a fair price” for land should be calculated.

This could be “existing use value plus a premium, or a price that reflects the cost of providing infrastructure, services and affordable housing as well as capturing a proportion of the remaining profit to be used for other local priorities”.

The authors suggest the Government also considers the range of options suggested by the commons select committee report on land value capture in autumn 2018.

For Oxfordshire, Poets suggests “exploring a strategic infrastructure tariff or countywide CIL” and setting up development corporations.

“If any significant development is to be pursued in the Oxford Cambridge Arc, it is important that the relationship between a possible regional CIL in the Arc [as recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission] and a strategic infrastructure tariff in Oxfordshire is clarified before further major development is confirmed.”

Land value capture: sharing the increase in the value of land when planning permission is granted is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb8agakl

Airport wins right to challenge court ruling

AIRPORTS

HEATHROW AIRPORT’S owners have been granted permission to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the Government’s support for a third runway plan was unlawful because it failed to consider the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Heathrow Airport Limited and Arora Holdings, which have separate plans to expand the airport, have been granted permission to challenge the ruling at the Supreme Court.

In February, the Court of Appeal ruled that the secretary of state had “acted unlawfully in failing to take into account the

2015 Paris Agreement on climate change when deciding to designate the Airports National Policy Statement (NPS) in support of the expansion of Heathrow Airport” (LTT 06 Mar). The case had been brought by Friends of the Earth.

The Court did not rule against a third runway but instead invited the Government to reconsider and amend the NPS to take account of the Paris Agreement. Any review will now also have to consider the Government’s net zero legislation on greenhouse gases that became law last summer.

The Government is not challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision. Anti-Heathrow expansion campaign group Hacan said

it was “widely assumed” that the Prime Minister Boris Johnston, a long-standing opponent of Heathrow, would amend the NPS to “kill-off a third runway”.

Reflecting on the permission to challenge the appeal court ruling, Hacan chair John Stewart said: “The surprise would have been if an appeal on an issue as big as this had not been allowed. What it does not mean is that the third runway is back on track.

Heathrow remains very much on its own as the Government is not backing its appeal.

“If Heathrow wins it will be able to resume drawing up its plans for a third runway to be presented to a public inquiry,

probably within the next two years. The Government, though, would have the final say as it would need to endorse or overrule the recommendation of the planning inspectors.”

Rowan Smith, a solicitor in the environmental law team at law firm Leigh Day that represents Friends of the Earth, said: “While our clients are disappointed to have to bring their case to court again they hope that the Supreme Court will agree that the government’s decision on the third runway at Heathrow was unlawful and will rule on this once and for all.”

Dates for the Supreme Court are still to be confirmed.

NR finds savings on rail electrification Network Rail has been reviewing its standards for electrification schemes and believes savings can be made to bridge reconstruction costs. Minutes of its March board meeting state: “Because of the high voltage testing work by the University of Southampton and Network Rail, in some circumstances physical height clearances could be significantly reduced. Initial studies suggested that many bridge reconstructions could be avoided in future electrification schemes, thereby reducing costs, programme duration, and disruption to railway neighbours and passengers.”

Extra £10m for onstreet EV charging The DfT has announced an extra £10m for on-street electric vehicle chargepoints, which it says will allow councils to install up to 7,200 devices. The DfT said it would also launch a consultation soon on ways to improve the consumer experience of EV charging, such as requiring rapid charging points to offer contactless payment for debit and credit cards, better information on EV charge pricing, and the location and operational status of EV chargepoints.

Value of road safety targets reviewed Researchers are reviewing the value of road safety targets in a project for the DfT. An online survey of practitioners has just been conducted by the team from Loughborough University and WSP. Statistical analysis will also be undertaken. The DfT does not currently set targets.

Explaining the need for a review, the Government’s British Road Safety Statement, published in 2019, said: “We know that some countries with targets are reducing their casualties, but we know conversely that others with targets are showing similar trends to us, in that casualties are remaining at the same levels.”

Herts awards transport contracts Hertfordshire County Council has awarded consultant WSP four of the lots in a transport and spatial planning procurement. WSP won the lots covering: core modelling services; major transport schemes; spatial planning and policy; and environmental support. Transport appraisal support will be provided by AECOM, the Project Centre and WSP. Additional modelling support will be provided by AECOM, SYSTRA and WSP.

LTT798_ad pages p14,16,26-31.qxp_LTT_ads_master 14/05/2020 14:44 Page 16

LTT798 page 17.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 09:56 Page 13

TransportXtra.com/ltt

News 17

Expenditure on transport ‘could soon exceed transport tax take’

Transport taxation and expenditure across Great Britain is put under the microscope in a new report published by the RAC Foundation. Andrew Forster reports

T

he last decade has seen marked shifts in patterns of public spending on transport and a reversal in a long-established trend of increases in transport taxes, according to a new analysis by David Bayliss, the former chief transport planner at the Greater London Council and director of planning for London Transport, the predecessor to Transport for London.

Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation that has published the analysis, said: “David’s report [raises] the prospect that in the absence of a root-and-branch overhaul of transport taxes and with the prospect of hefty increases in investment in the national railways, and to a lesser extent trunk roads, there is a real prospect that public spending on land transport could come to exceed transport tax receipts.

“It remains to be seen whether the measures being taken to respond to the coronavirus pandemic and subsequently to help the economy recover will indeed take us down this path.”

The report contains a mass of detail on transport taxation and public expenditure.

Overall, Bayliss says: “Over the period (2008/09-2018/19) the excess of transport direct tax receipts over [transport] public expenditure has shrunk, at constant prices, from almost £11bn/year to roundly £2bn/year.

“This has been driven on the one hand by real reductions in motoring taxes and on the other by a doubling of public expenditure on the railways.”

Road user taxes increased in real terms until 2010/11 but by 2018/19 stood at £3.5bn less than the peak year of 2010/11.

Direct transport taxes (fuel duty and Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)) currently yield about £33.6bn a year – 5 per cent of all central tax and National Insurance contributions, and about £1.9bn a year more than public expenditure on all forms of domestic transport.

Of this, cars pay approximately £22bn, vans £5.1bn, lorries £4.8bn, buses £0.8bn and rail £0.08bn. In addition, road users pay VAT on fuel duty amounting to a further £5.4bn.

The reduction in transport tax receipts comes despite a 13 per cent increase in eligible vehicle numbers and a 6 per cent increase in road traffic between 2008/9 and 2018/19.

“The freezing of fuel duty prices in March 2011, along with improving vehicle fuel economy, reduced fuel duty receipts by £1.7bn over the period, whereas they would have instead risen by around £1.3bn (a £3bn difference) had fuel duty been raised in line with inflation,” says Bayliss.

The restructuring of VED rates, combined with a higher proportion of vehicles emitting lower levels of carbon dioxide, resulted in a reduction in real VED rates of

14 per cent, and a consequent 3 per cent reduction in receipts, despite the increase in the road vehicle parc.

Despite the falling receipts, Bayliss says “car travel pays substantially more in taxes than the amount by which it benefits from public expenditure on the road system”. He estimates that taxes paid for car travel have fallen from 3.9p/passenger-kilometre (pkm) in 2008/09 to 3.5p/pkm in 2018/19.

If public spending on roads is taken into account, the fall in net tax take reduces from 2.6p/pkm to 2.4p/pkm.

For heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), gross tax rates increased from 16.9p/vehiclekilometre (vkm) to 17.6p/vkm and net rates from 12.6p/vkm to 13.7p/vkm. Vans, on the other hand, saw a small reduction – from 6.7p/vkm to 6.2p/vkm gross and from 4.7p/vkm to 4.5p/vkm net. l

Rail spend and taxes

Turning to railways, Bayliss says the level of public support for rail is “rather more complex” than other modes “because of the range of types of operations in existence, and how certain elements of expenditure should be treated”.

Analysis of rail spend is complicated by Network Rail’s reclassification as a central government body rather than a private company in September 2014. This resulted in a sharp increase in reported spending on rail capital and current expenditure between 2014/15 and 2015/16. Network Rail had net debts of £54.1bn at the end of 2018/19, which incurred an annual financing cost of £2.2bn.

“If all [rail] public expenditure is allocated to contemporary traffic levels, support rates averaged 16.4p/pkm over the

period, ranging from a minimum of 13p/pkm in 2014/15 to a maximum of 22p/pkm in 2018/19, this recent surge reflecting the reclassification of Network Rail’s loans and the build-up of HS2 spending.

“A more meaningful treatment of National Rail’s passenger travel support rates is the direct subsidy rates. These fell over the period from 10.9p/pkm to 6.3p/pkm; when other costs (but not Network Rail loans) are included, the drop is rather less, from 11.7p/pkm to 10.5p/pkm, reflecting the fact that savings in routine operations are being offset by higher rates of investment.”

On rail taxes, train operators pay duty on the fuel oil they burn, but this is levied at a lower rate (11.14p/ litre) than that which applies to most forms of road transport.

Passenger railways used 469 million litres of diesel in 2018/19. This implies annual fuel duty revenue from passenger rail of about £52m. For rail freight the corresponding figure is £17m. As the duty rate has not changed since March 2011, Bayliss says the real value of rail fuel duty receipts has fallen from £83m in 2008/9 to £79m in 2017/18.

The Climate Change Levy applies to most industrial electricity consumption but electricity used by trains is exempt. “With the levy standing at 0.583p per kilowatthour, with the railways using 4,052 million kilowatt-hours in 2018/19, this was worth of the order of £23.6m,” says Bayliss.

“Electricity consumption by National Rail for passenger and freight operations increased by 35 per cent between 2008/9 and 2018/19, while TfL’s Underground and rail operations use just over a third as much electricity on top of National Rail’s usage,

thus benefitting from this exemption to the tune of about £8m a year.”

Turning round the Tube

Taxpayer support for London Underground has fallen sharply. “London Underground required approximately £0.7bn operating subsidy in 2008/09, but converted this into a surplus of £0.44bn in 2018/19. Over the period an 8.2p/pkm subsidy was turned into a 3.6p/pkm surplus. If other costs are included, the London Underground continued to need financial support, but at a rate reducing from 21.5p/pkm to 7.1p/pkm.”

Bus spend declines

The report also documents a significant drop in public funding for the bus industry through Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) and, in Wales, the Bus Services Support Grant (BSSG); funding for socially necessary services; and concessionary travel.

In 2018/19, BSOG/BSSG support amounted to just under £0.3bn, direct support stood at £0.93bn, and the cost of concessions was £1.25bn.

“These subsidies have reduced significantly over the period – by 28 per cent overall, with BSOG/BSSG and service subsidies being particularly badly hit, seeing reductions of 49 per cent and 35 per cent respectively.”

Land transport in Great Britain – public expenditure, taxes and subsidies is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7g57ubk

LTT798 Feature.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 10:34 Page 14

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

18 Feature

Number crunching through the HS2 Phase One business case

C

The DfT’s updated business case for HS2 Phase One explains the project’s new cost envelope and shows that, using a conventional appraisal, the 140 mile project represents low value for money, though the DfT says that doesn’t tell the full story. Andrew Forster reports ovid-19 may seem to colour everything in transport right now but other things are happening. HS2 Phase One, the route between London and the West Midlands, reached a milestone last month with the Government issuing the notice to proceed for construction. Although that made headlines, the revised business case for Phase One released on the same day received much less attention.

Even here Covid-19 makes an appearance, though the analysis was prepared before the outbreak began.

The Department says it considered whether it was right to proceed with construction, given the circumstances.

“In line with public health guidance, which allows construction activity to continue where it is safe to do so, we have concluded that continuing is the right course of action.” On the bigger question of the virus’s possible long-term impact on travel demand, the Department says: “The uncertain outcome of the Covid-19 outbreak means it has not been possible to undertake specific analysis to determine the outbreak’s potential longerterm impacts to transport passenger demand.”

The London to West Midlands HS2 route will be designed to allow trains to operate at 330kph (206mph) routinely, with a maximum speed of 360kph (225mph).

HS2 trains will run on the conventional network at speeds of up to 177kph (110mph).

Phase One is expected to cut the journey time from London to Birmingham from 82 to 49 minutes. Journey times to the northwest of England and Glasgow will also be cut, with these further benefitting from the Government’s plan to build phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe) to the same timescale.

With the full Y-network in place to Manchester and Leeds, the London to Manchester journey time will be cut from 127 to 67 minutes and Birmingham to Leeds from 118 down to 49.

The cost of Phase One is now put in a range of £35bn-£45bn (Q3 2019 prices). The lower end of the range (actually £34.7bn) is the point estimate, £40bn is the target cost (including £5bn of contingency), and £45bn the project’s funding envelope agreed with the Treasury.

Phase One is now expected to open in stages, with services initially running between Birmingham Curzon Street and Old Oak Common in west London. “This will ensure that the time required to get an optimised solution for a terminus at Euston does not delay the start of HS2 services,” the DfT explains. Services are expected to commence between 2029 and 2033.

A maximum of six trains an hour will operate from Old Oak during this interim period, comprising three

At each point an increasing weight of evidence has demonstrated the pressing importance for a step change in capacity.

DfT

Birmingham Curzon Street: construction work can now begin following the Government issuing the notice to proceed to the main works contractors

trains per hour between Old Oak and Curzon Street, and one train an hour to Liverpool Lime Street, one to Manchester Piccadilly and one to Glasgow Central. The latter three services would run over the HS2 phase 2a line as far as Crewe, where they would join the conventional network.

Service frequencies would rise to ten an hour when the Euston HS2 station opens: three to Birmingham; three to Manchester Piccadilly; two to Liverpool Lime Street (one of which would also serve Lancaster, the two portions splitting/joining at Crewe); one to Glasgow Central; and one to Macclesfield. All trains going north of Birmingham would use phase 2a to Crewe with the exception of the Macclesfield service that would use the Handsacre Junction connection to the West Coast Main Line and serve intermediate stops at Stafford and Stoke. The economic case for Phase One assumes that services from Euston commence in December 2031.

HS2 Phase 2b, the lines between Crewe and Manchester and the West Midlands to Leeds are now wrapped up in the Government’s review of the rail needs of the Midlands and north of England. Assuming Phase 2b is completed as currently planned, then the Government envisages the number of train services running over Phase One rising to 17 trains per hour each way: • three to Birmingham; • three to Manchester Piccadilly; • two to Liverpool (one of which would serve Lancaster, splitting/joining at Crewe); • one to Macclesfield; • two to Glasgow/Edinburgh (splitting at Carlisle) • two to Newcastle • three to Leeds (one of which would have a portion to Sheffield, splitting joining at Toton East Midlands Hub)

• one to York/Sheffield (the train splitting/joining at Toton) In addition, services are assumed to run from Birmingham to: Edinburgh/Glasgow; Manchester; Leeds; and Newcastle.

The rolling stock requirements for HS2 envisage a fleet of 54 trains capable of also running on conventional lines, and an option for up to 30 more. The initial fleet provision includes enough trains to service the currently proposed Phase One and 2a train service specification. Trains would be 200 metres long but could operate as double formations.

‘Why HS2 is needed’

The business case contains the five standard cases required by the Treasury: the strategic, financial, economic, commercial and management cases.

In the strategic case, the DfT says the rationale for building HS2 has strengthened with time. The need for the project has been restated at key milestones in the project: in 2013 alongside deposit of the Phase One Hybrid Bill, and in 2015 and 2017.

“At each point an increasing weight of evidence has demonstrated the pressing importance for a step change in capacity to alleviate crowding problems on the existing railway, and the scheme’s potential to redistribute opportunity and prosperity more evenly across the country,” says the Department.

It says the key justifications for building HS2 are: • the capacity of the existing rail network cannot cope with the growth in demand for rail travel; and • HS2 is a transformational programme that will act as a catalyst for wider growth and help level-up the economies of the Midlands and the North

LTT798 Feature.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 10:34 Page 15

TransportXtra.com/ltt

Feature 19

Improved connectivity and the associated agglomeration effect will boost regional economies by encouraging businesses to settle outside of London.

DfT Moreover, HS2 will also play “a vital role in delivering the Government’s net zero [greenhouse gas] objectives”.

On capacity, the DfT says rail passenger growth has averaged 3.7 per cent a year since the mid-1990s, and long-distance passenger demand has grown at 4.2 per cent. Passenger numbers on the West Coast Main Line (WCML), which HS2 will relieve, have grown even faster.

“Since the upgrade was completed (in the mid2000s), the WCML has seen a period of extraordinary growth and this has continued every year since – despite the economic downturn from 2008. Passenger journeys have nearly tripled, growing from 13.2 million in 1996/97 to 39.5 million in 2018/19, representing growth of 199 per cent since 1996/97 compared to 119 per cent on the wider rail network.”

The DfT concedes that “overall demand growth at a national level has plateaued in recent years”. The annual growth rate for franchise operators was 3.7 per cent for 1994/95 to 2018/19 but 2.1 per cent for 2013/14 to 2018/19. Franchised long distance operators saw growth of 4.2 per cent in 1994/95-2018/19 but 2.6 per cent in 2013/14 to 2018/19.

The fast lines on the four-track at the southern end of the West Coast Main Line now carry 15-16 trains an hour in peak periods. “This is a higher intensity of operation than comparable major fast lines in other European countries, including purpose-built high-speed lines. The WCML has exhausted its available train paths and no extra services could be run without further significant investment to enhance current infrastructure or build a new line.”

HS2 will have capacity for “up to” 18 trains per hour.

“Research from the University of Birmingham states that, under perfect conditions, 16 trains per hour capacity could be obtained on a high-speed line like HS2, without including recovery time. If automatic train operation was provided one to two more trains per hour is possible.”

The new railway will free up capacity on the southern end of the WCML for more local trains to places such as Milton Keynes, Northampton and Rugby. “Under current plans there will also be a substantial increase in the number of peak-time seats out of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.”

Under “current plans” HS2 could also ease pressure on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) and Midland Main Line (MML). This requires construction of Phase 2b, which facilitates London-Sheffield, London-Leeds Edinburgh/Newcastle/York-London services to run over HS2 infrastructure. This, in turn, would allow more local services on the southern end of the ECML between London and places such as Cambridge and Peterborough. The use of the words “current plans” may ultimately prove significant. Doug Oakervee’s review of HS2, published in February, raises questions about constructing the HS2 phase 2b connection to the Leeds-York line ( (LTT 17 Apr). Without it, Edinburgh/Newcastle/York-London services would all remain on the ECML. HS2’s contribution to the economy has been a bone of contention ever since the project was first touted.

Advocates say it will reduce the north-south economic divide; critics say it will reinforce the dominance of

The indicative service plan for the West Coast Main Line and HS2 following the opening of Phase One (London to the West Midlands)

London.

“Improved connectivity and the associated agglomeration effect will boost regional economies by encouraging businesses to settle outside of London, helping to level-up the economy,” says the DfT. The evidence it presents includes comments by the CBI’s director of infrastructure, Tom Thackray, last August that approval of HS2 Phase One had already “led to record levels of foreign direct investment in the West Midlands, with more than 7,000 new jobs created in Birmingham as a direct result of HS2, and over 100,000 more. We have seen and are continuing to see similar benefits right across the proposed route.”

The DfT adds: “Key players in the services indus-

tries, such as HSBC and Channel 4 have already moved their headquarters to Birmingham and Leeds. In January 2020 BT Group announced it will take occupation of the Three Snow Hill development in Birmingham City Centre, in the largest single office letting in Birmingham, securing a reported 4,000 jobs.”

HS2’s contribution to the Government’s climate change agenda has been hotly disputed. The business case says HS2 has a “vital role” to play in achieving the Government’s Climate Change Act net zero greenhouse gas target for 2050. “HS2 has the potential to take passengers off domestic flights and reduce the demand for > CONTINUED ON P20

LTT798 Feature.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 10:34 Page 16

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

20 Feature new roads.” It is predicted to deliver emissions of 8g per CO2e per passenger kilometre by 2030, compared to 22g by normal intercity rail, 67g by inter-urban car, and 170g by domestic aviation.

HS2 will consume about one per cent of UK electricity per annum, the DfT believes.

The greenhouse gas emissions associated with building HS2 are “significant”, the Department concedes, but it is keen to put things into perspective. “The estimated total carbon emissions from both building and operating Phase One for a full 120 years produces the same amount of carbon as just one month of the UK’s road network.”

The costs

It was last summer that the Government admitted what most people had long suspected – that the project was way off schedule and budget.

The Department now has more confidence in the latest costing of HS2 Phase One because it is informed by “mature design and contractor costs”.

“Following extensive challenge and benchmarking against comparable UK projects, the Department and HS2 Ltd now consider these estimates, including the contingency allowed, to be realistic.”

The previous baseline cost for Phase One relied 97 per cent on client-derived costs. The new version prepared last year (known as Baseline 7) is based on just under 50 per cent market prices from contractors, 28 per cent from HS2 Ltd’s professional service consultants, and the remainder from HS2 Ltd’s own estimate of the costs. “This difference in design maturity is a reflection on where each ‘cost pillar’ falls in the programme, with civils and stations work starting ahead of railways systems, rolling stock and the operational testing work that forms part of the final delivery stages,” the DfT explains.

HS2 Ltd awarded two-stage design and construct main works contracts for Phase One to four joint ventures in 2017 (LTT 21 Jul 17). Last month’s notice to proceed gives HS2 Ltd the authority to proceed to the

construction stage.

The Oakervee Review suggested there might be benefits of reprocuring the main works contracts to achieve better prices. The DfT says this was unnecessary, however. “Prior to notice to proceed, HS2 Ltd closed on an agreed position on price, contract form and incentives with all the joint ventures,” it explains. “The Department is content that the negotiated commercial positions agreed with the joint ventures are acceptable value for money, with an incentivisation package designed to deliver gain-share savings during construction and limit further cost exposure above the target price.”

The revised commercial model “provides a lower level of risk transfer in order to avoid disproportionate risk premiums,” the DfT explains. This, it says, “was a pragmatic response within market constraints, given that the best alternative was a two-year reprocurement with no guarantee of a better outcome on cost, incentives or risk allocation”. Project risks continue to sit with the main works contractors, with programme risks held by HS2 Ltd. To set the £40bn target cost and the £45bn funding envelope for Phase One, the Government used reference class forecasting (RCF). “This assesses the historic outturn performance of a range of projects with similar characteristics to the project in question and considers what cost and schedule contingency would need to be applied to achieve a predicted outturn if the current project performed on average as well or badly as the range of projects in the reference class,” the DfT explains.

The RCF was carried out by Oxford Global Projects, a spin-out consultancy from the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School. The consultant’s chairman and co-founder is the mega-project academic Bent Flyvbjerg.

The RCF exercise used a dataset of 526 projects. The Department complemented the RCF analysis with HS2 Ltd’s quantitative cost risk assessment.

The £45bn funding envelope is based on RCF at the

P75 (75 per cent probability) delivery confidence, which added approximately 37 per cent to costs to go.

This equates to £10bn of contingency and would provide for sufficient funding for potential cost overruns in 75 per cent of the reference class sample. “The Department considers it is uneconomic to allocate additional funding beyond this level,” says the business case.

The £40bn target cost is calculated by taking the Phase One point estimate (£34.7bn) and adding contingency based on a P50 delivery confidence from the reference class forecast, an 18 per cent adjustment on the costs to go, approximately £5bn.

Because the business case is for Phase One, it is light on detail about the costs of phases 2a and 2b. Last summer the Government put the capital cost of the whole Y network at £81bn-£88bn in 2019 prices (LTT 13 Sep 19). The Phase One business case cites a central cost estimate for Phase 2a (West Midlands-Crewe) of £4.4bn plus 36 per cent contingency, taking the figure to £6bn. For Phase 2b (Crewe-Manchester and West Midlands to Leeds) it cites a central cost estimate of £28.7bn plus 36 per cent contingency, taking the cost to £39bn. These figures will be even less robust than the Phase One costing because the planning of phases 2a and 2b is less advanced.

Low or medium value for money

The economic case is complicated by the fact that results are presented for three different programmes.

The first is the Phase One Parliamentary powers for a route between London and the West Midlands. In this scenario, trains to/from northwest of England trains would join/leave the WCML at the proposed Handsacre Junction. The second economic appraisal considers the Government’s ‘statement of intent’ to build HS2 Phase One and 2a (West Midlands to Crewe) to the same schedule, eliminating the need for trains to join the WCML at Handsacre. And the third appraisal considers the whole Y network.

‘Weak business case may say more about appraisal than HS2’ Comment David Metz The full business case for HS2 supports the Government’s decision to go ahead with the entire new rail route from London to the cities of the Midlands and the North, despite the dramatic escalation in construction costs, from £37.5bn in 2011, to £50bn in 2013, to £65bn in 2015, to £109m1 in the latest business case, and doubtless even more in eventual outturn.

It is noteworthy that the initial increases in the cost of HS2 did not change the supposed economic benefits, as measured by the benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR), which held steady at close to 2.0, representing ‘high’ value-for-money according to the DfT’s value for money framework for economic appraisal.

This was the result of substantial additional benefits being recognised by the promoters, even though nothing fundamental had changed in the business case. However, last year independent reviews by Douglas Oakervee and by the National Audit Office estimated higher capital costs that reduced the BCR to 1.5 or lower.

The new business case recognises these new capital costs but fails to identify any compensating additional benefits, such that Phase One (London to Birmingham) has a central-case BCR of 1.2, while the full Y network has a BCR of 1.5.

Accordingly, Phase One has been assessed as ‘low’ valuef or money, while the full network would be ‘low to medium’. Any further increase in capital costs would reduce the outturn BCR, as would less

demand than assumed for rail travel over the 60-year forecast period.

It is surely remarkable that the largest ever UK transport infrastructure investment is proceeding on the basis of such low returns, given the great number of more attractive potential such investments. Is this a case of politics trumping economics, or are the politicians right to see benefits not recognised by orthodox economic analysis?

The precedent of the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) to London’s Docklands, with a BCR of less than one on the standard approach to appraisal, indicates the potential regeneration benefits that may be achieved.

The increased real estate values, reflecting the economic benefits to businesses locating at Canary Wharf and beyond, were not taken into account since this would supposedly involve doubling counting benefits implicit in the value of travel time savings, the main element of economic benefit in the standard DfT WebTAG appraisal methodology.

These time savings comprise small amounts of time saved by large numbers of commuters, valued by market research techniques that require respondents to trade time and money in the short run. Yet it is scarcely credible that the aggregate of such time savings could provide a measure of the long run cumulative real estate value uplift, whether for the JLE or for HS2.

Moreover, orthodox investment appraisal has no spatial content, no indication of the geographical distribution of economic benefits. This is a crucial issue for HS2, the strategic aim of which is to boost the economies of the cities of the Midlands and the North.

More fundamentally, the importance attached to

travel time savings is misconceived. The National Travel Survey has been measuring average travel time for 45 years, over which period it has hardly changed, despite many £billions of public investment in transport infrastructure justified by the value of supposed time savings.

In reality, people take the benefit of such investment not in the form of more time for work or leisure, but as greater access to desired destinations yielding more opportunities and choices. The purpose of HS2 is to increase the access to London of those living in the Midlands and the North (and vice-versa). Increased access will lead to changed land use and enhanced real estate values, which are the market indicators of economic development.

It is possible that the real economic benefits of HS2 are substantially greater than calculated in the full business case using the WebTAG methodology. It is therefore time to reconsider the basis of transport economic appraisal from first principles.

1 The £108.9bn is the estimate of total costs – capital costs, renewals and operating costs over the 60 year appraisal and is in 2015 prices. It is not therefore comparable to the £35bn-£45bn capital cost estimate of Phase One, which is in 2019 prices – Ed]

David Metz is honorary professor at the Centre for Transport Studies, University College London. He blogs at www.drivingchange.org.uk

LTT798 Feature.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 10:34 Page 17

TransportXtra.com/ltt

By assessing the benefits, revenues and operating costs over 100 years they are closer aligned to the railway’s design life of 120 years.

DfT The headline numbers from the economic appraisal are that Phase One has a benefit:cost ratio of 1.2, representing low value for money. This BCR is calculated both for the HS2 Phase One only and for the Phase One and 2a combined, though the numbers underpinning the ratio differ.

The BCR for the whole Y network is 1.5, the border between low and medium value for money.

It’s worth remembering that, in line with Government guidance, these BCRs ignore sunk costs – expenditure made on the project up to the end of 2019 (except for purchase costs on land and property that could be recoverable were HS2 not to go ahead). The total spend on HS2 so far amounts to about £8bn.

The above BCRs take into account both transport user benefits and wider economic impacts (WEIs). The DfT’s appraisal guidance nowadays identifies three levels of scheme appraisal, varying by the maturity of their techniques: user benefits (most mature); wider economic impacts (WEIs) assuming fixed land-use; and variable land-use (least mature).

The DfT and HS2 Ltd plan to prepare an economic case based on variable land-use for future business case updates. The DfT points to the importance of land-use change to the project’s strategic case – for instance, regenerating city centres and creating new business activity around out-of-town stations such as Birmingham Interchange and Toton.

Using the standard 60-year appraisal, the assessment of phase one and 2a combined produces net transport benefits of £30.3bn. The main ones are: journey time reductions £17.7bn; reduced crowding £5.1bn; and greater reliability £4.35bn. WEIs add a further £7.7bn.

Acknowledging that the Phase One BCR represents low value for money, the DfT emphasises that Phase One is “an enabler to the full Y network, which has demonstrated ‘low to medium’ value for money]”.

Moreover, “switching values and sensitivities demonstrate that only small changes to the benefits or costs of the full ‘Y’ scheme move the BCR to a medium value for money, i.e. above 1.5:1”.

Conversely, further cost increases or lower demand/WEIs, or a combination of the two, could push the BCR down further. If the whole of the funding envelope is needed, i.e. £45bn, then the BCR of Phase One falls to 1.0 with WEIs (poor value for money is anything below 1). A 16 per cent drop in user benefits and WEIs would push the BCR for Phase One down to 0.9.

The Department has conducted a number of sensitivity tests on the economic case. In the conventional appraisal, the HS2 passenger demand forecasts are capped to the rate of population growth from 20 years after the start of the appraisal period, in line with the DfT’s Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG). This results in the cap applying from 2039/40, shortly after the full Y-network becomes operational. An ‘Extended BCR’ sensitivity test extended the project’s demand forecasts.

“Whilst the demand cap reflects that the future is inherently uncertain, evidence suggests that demand growth is highly likely to exceed four years and to assume otherwise would fail to capture the effect that Phase 2b will have on the demand for rail travel,” the Department explains. “Thus, the application of a much lower growth rate from 2039/40 reduces the benefits and revenues captured in the economic case.

“Extending the demand forecasting period for an

Feature 21

Economic analysis of HS2 (Prevent Value 2015 prices)

Phase One Only Phase One and 2a ‘Parliamentary Powers’ ‘Statement of Intent’

Full Y network

1. Benefits (incl WEIs)

£32.8bn

£38.0bn

£94.7bn

2. Total costs

£43.3bn

£51.2bn

£108.9bn

3. Revenues

£15.7bn

£18.4bn

£45.4bn

4. Net cost to Government

£27.6bn

£32.8bn

£63.5bn

Benefit:cost ratio (1/4)

1.2

1.2

1.5

Value for money category

Low

Low

Low to Medium

(2 – 3)

Components of BCR in statement of intent network (Phase One and 2a) 1. Net transport benefits 2. Wider economic impacts (WEIs)

£30.3bn £7.7bn

3. Net benefits including WEIs

£38bn

4. Capital costs

£39.4bn

5. Renewals 6. Operating costs

£3bn £8.8bn

7. Total costs (4+5+6)

£51.2bn

8. Revenues

£18.4bn

9. Net cost to Government (7-8)

£32.8bn

BCR without WEIs (1/9)

0.9

BCR with WEIs (3/9)

1.2

extra ten years will allow for more demand on Phase 2b with passengers benefiting from the faster, more frequent, more reliable and less crowded services. This approach forecasts demand growth of 0.6 per cent per annum (itself a conservative estimate) above population growth for the ten years to 2049.” This raises the BCR for the Y network to 1.8.

HS2 chairman Allan Cook’s report on the project last year recommended that an appraisal lasting longer than 60 years be conducted (LTT 13 Sep 19). The DfT has tested this out with a ‘residual value sensitivity’. “HS2 is currently appraised over a standard Departmental TAG 60-year appraisal period although it is expected to be operational for considerably longer,” the DfT explains. “The country’s existing rail network was first developed by the Victorians and continues to be used today. Indeed, HS2 Ltd is required to design the infrastructure for a 120-year design life.

“By assessing the benefits, revenues and operating costs over 100 years they are closer aligned to the [railway’s] design life of 120 years. Inclusion of the residual value sensitivities increases the BCR to 1.8 [a table in the report gives a value of 2.1] when including WEIs, which pushes the value for money into medium.”

The combination of a 100-year appraisal and extending the demand forecasting period by ten years to 2049 raises the BCR for the Y network to 2.6.

Recouping the investment

The DfT expects that HS2 will lead to an improvement in the financial position of Britain’s railways.

“Our analysis suggests that this could range from around £170m (Phase One) to £670m (Full Network) per year.”

The Government has yet to decide how these extra revenues will be recovered.

“This will depend on future decisions on the operating and commercial model for HS2. To recover some or all of this surplus via the Infrastructure Manager [initially HS2 Ltd], the Government intends for HS2 Ltd to levy an investment recovery charge on all operators using HS2 infrastructure.

“The charge is essential to preserve the option of a future concession sale of HS2, as it provides an income to the infrastructure manager that is over and above the

direct costs it incurs. Without such an income stream the concession sale value of HS2 will be insufficient for this to be a credible option.”

With an investment recovery charge in place on HS2, the Government will have a choice between the early sale of a concession to raise significant funds upfront, or to retain ownership of HS2 and take the surplus revenues as an ongoing income stream.

An investment recovery charge applies on HS1, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Its completion in 2007 was followed three years later by the Government letting a 30-year infrastructure concession. Explains the DfT: “While the Government has not decided at this stage whether to pursue a similar model for HS2, retaining the ability to sell HS2 as an infrastructure concession is an essential requirement for the programme, and HS2 Ltd is instructed in its development agreement to ensure that this option remains available.”

The management case for Phase One explains how the Government intends to ensure the project is delivered smoothly. The HS2 Ltd board is to be strengthened, including by the appointment of at least three further non-executive directors to bring in new challenge and leadership. Two will be nominated by the Government to represent its interests and to act as a direct link back to the Department.

“HS2 Ltd intends to make changes to its executive to reflect the delivery model following notice to proceed,” adds the DfT. The DfT is the sponsor for the HS2 programme, responsible for setting the policy framework, securing the funding, and ensuring that the benefits are realised.

Andrew Stevenson is the transport minister responsible for HS2 and an HS2 ministerial committee is being set up too. The programme is led by the Department’s director general for the High Speed and major rail projects group (HSMRP), who is also the programme’s senior responsible owner (SRO). Beneath this are four directors in charge of Phase One; Euston (to be appointed); Phase 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail; and programme integration.

Full business case – HS2 Phase One is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9or4zvc

LTT798 Viewpoint and letters.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 06:55 Page 18

22 Comment

VIEWPOINT

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

Every piece of our transport system will be changed forever by Covid-19 Roger Davies

A tsunami of social change has been heading towards us for several years. On 23 March 2020 it hit. Transport is a key thread in our lives. Covid-19 will dramatically change our lives and, be under no illusion, the provision of all forms of transport.

There will be two massive legacies. Firstly, in the space of one week, public transport went from a good thing to use to being a good thing not to use. Secondly, social distancing. Neither of these messages will be forgotten quickly.

The emergency will make the fundamental question asked of transport, “Is your travel necessary?”

This episode has demonstrated that in many cases the answer is very firmly “No”.

Would a new business rent or buy expensive city centre offices, equip them at its own expense and expect a large workforce to suffer long journeys in cramped, overcrowded and, as we now realise, germ-laden public transport? Of course they wouldn’t.

Industries that have traditionally felt they could not function without day-to-day face-to-face contact may be having second thoughts. Businesses, particularly transport, will be aware of the possibility of legal action if staff become ill as a result of a breach of social distancing.

At last we may be seeing the death of one of the greatest threats to our environment and air quality, the nine to five commute. One business leader has already said, “People working from home should get used to it.”

Businesses have rapidly learnt the cost savings of home working. We cannot all do it, of course. But local work hubs make sense and will be easier to arrange social distancing in. Cumbria’s largest employer, Sellafield, with 10,000 staff, had already set up a hub in Millom in the local library, sparing locally based staff a commute to the main site.

Making public transport users wear face masks will do nothing to increase confidence.

Public transport and social distancing don’t mix. End of.

In Passing

LTT once heard a tale of a man who moved house by bus. Everything went well until he boarded a service with his TV set. “Sorry pal,” said the driver, “I can’t let you aboard, for all I know there could be a bomb in that.” So our enterprising mover returned home, wrapped the TV in a black plastic bin bag, and boarded the next service without incident. We were reminded of this story by a Dorset Council report explaining how officers have been helping people during the Covid-19 lockdown. “We used a bus to help a family move house in Dorchester yesterday,” they reported. “This was an unusual request for us but we’re more than willing to help someone in need.”

Bus drivers in York are also finding gainful new employment (though, thankfully, the buses are not). A

Education will be hit too. It places massive demands on the transport sector, with universities generating huge amounts of public transport use, particularly buses.

Many town and city centres are dominated by university buildings and student accommodation, much of it is funded by higher paying foreign students. Already universities were becoming worried about their reliance on this sector, if it drastically reduces as it likely will, then some will fail.

The tourism, hospitality and sport industries have taken a massive hit and it is difficult to see how they can ever return to the way things were.

The way we shop too has changed, the growing online ordering and home delivery taking a massive leap ahead. But more home or local working may save our high streets, with workers shopping and eating locally.

How will all this play out for different transport modes? A car is a mobile room and there will be an understandable desire to be in your own space rather than shared space. Already, some people were prepared to put up with congestion for this simple reason. More flexible work patterns could spread traffic levels more evenly, so congestion may not be as great a problem.

Electric cars could encourage more car use, their users feeling they are ‘saving the planet’.

For public transport the message, “Use public transport to save the planet but it might kill you” is a difficult one to sell. Making users wear face masks will do nothing to increase confidence. Public transport and social distancing don’t mix. End of.

It is difficult to see how the railways can adjust to the new order. They will be dramatically affected because more than 90 per cent of their business is commuterbased networks into big centres, and changes of frequency and times of travel will have a massive effect.

Packed commuter trains may simply become unacceptable. Rail vehicles will need to be redesigned, eliminating standing and facilitating social distancing, drastically reducing capacity.

Long distance business travel has been proven to be largely unnecessary. As speed and timing are not important for leisure travel, and families wish to sit together, the benefits of the car come to the fore. There is of course absolutely no need for HS2. One opportunity for rail is that with reduced passenger numbers there may be increased capacity for freight.

Buses may suffer in the same way as trains but on a

larger scale as they carry far more people than railways.

They are not, however, so dependent on commuters and a growth in local traffic could present opportunities. In the short distance market there are really only two shows in town, buses and cars. Walking and cycling have a role to play but they are not mainstream as they are not accessible to all and are weather and geography dependent.

The car will always have the edge over buses at the home end of a journey but, with intelligent local planning and a will, buses could have advantages at the destination. They must be flexible and agile to meet rapidly changing needs and a rigid franchising system will not provide this. Local authorities should not expect that if they give buses advantages over the car they deserve to have control. When granting permission for commercial developments do they get a say in the product and pricing? Of course not.

Bus vehicle design will need to change; bigger buses with less capacity may be the answer. An opportunity for operators, and some are already doing this, is to get into the parcel delivery business, something many companies did in the past. As a timetabled service, arranging to collect at your local bus stop may be attractive.

The future for the coach industry looks bleak. Virtually all its markets have gone. A possible growth area may be commuter coaches. Forty years ago these proved a success and helped reduce standing on trains.

Again, vehicle design will need to change.

Light rail schemes will be more difficult to justify.

The vehicles used on them, mainly dependent on high standing capacity, will need drastic redesign.

The way we pay for transport will change, with huge resistance to using cash. With more flexible working, people will be keen to ‘pay as they go’ rather than pay in advance for stored value and season tickets. This will have a big impact on operators’ cash flow.

Planes will be interesting. Passenger-only airlines will be in trouble but those carrying freight too may come out of this better than any sector.

Nothing will be the same again. Be realistic, not in denial.

council paper reports: “Collaboration with bus operators has enabled some bus drivers to be retained and redeployed as refuse vehicle drivers, as the council has worked to prioritise household and recycling collections.”

One quibble: the guidance says school streets were “pioneered in London”. Is that really so? If LTT were asked, we’d venture Scotland. And if asked to be more precise we’d say Dundee.

News from London where the independent candidate for mayor Rory Stewart has pulled out the race. Stewart can’t afford to fund his campaign for another year following the postponement of this month’s election because of Covid-19.

The Times columnist Matthew Parris has never rated Boris Johnson and last weekend he stuck the boot in over the PM’s handling of the Covid-19 epidemic. Illustrating his lack of suitability for high office, Parris cited Johnson’s performance at Prime Minister’s questions, writing: “Later, asked about public transport, Johnson started burbling about a new golden age of cycling. Rush-hour Tube trains carry more than a thousand passengers every two minutes.” And with that, Parris saw no need to say anything more.

The DfT’s new guidance on road network management in response to Covid-19 encourages councils to introduce more ‘school streets’ – areas around schools where traffic is restricted at pick-up and drop-off times.

Roger Davies worked for 22 years in the bus industry, ending up as a director of operations. Since then he has done consultancy work including on five rail franchises and writes regularly about the public transport industry.

LTT798 Viewpoint and letters.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 06:56 Page 19

TransportXtra.com/ltt

Green transport agenda is built on wishful thinking

Liverpool’s claims for the success of 20mph limits (‘Liverpool hails results from 20mph limits’ LTT 01 May) are a further demonstration of why councils should not be allowed to mark their own exam papers and objective analysis by the likes of DfT 20mph report co-author Professor Mike Maher is essential.

Your report highlights some of the questionable aspects of the claimed results and, as usual, theoretical, inflated ‘values’ are confused with actual ‘costs’ (which can often be covered by insurance claims) in order to justify the £1.65m cost of changing speed limit signs from 30 to 20.

Moving on, it was good to read John Helm’s excellent letter about the affront to democracy known as climate assemblies, which leads me on to the judicial review of the DfT’s road investment strategy (RIS2) (‘Judicial review sought of roads programme’). It’s clear that neither the Government nor solicitors have any understanding of the insignificance of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Bjorn Lomborg showed in his November 2015 peer-reviewed paper that even if all the governments of the world keep the promises they made under the agreement (they won’t), then global temperatures would be reduced by just 0.05C by 2100 at a cost of $trillions: https://tinyurl.com/jea4oso Exactly four years after Lomborg’s paper, former UN IPCC chair Sir Robert Watson co-authored a paper entitled ‘The Truth Behind the Paris Agreement Climate Pledges’ in November 2019: https://tinyurl.com/y7sxp7ja This shows that 75 per cent of the 184 pledges were judged as insufficient to slow climate change.

Lomborg’s latest (2020) peer-reviewed paper reinforces the fact that the Paris Agreement can only deliver one per cent of the reduction in global emissions claimed to be needed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C at the staggering cost of $819bn to $1,890 bn per year in 2030: https://tinyurl.com/y9vm6tcj Of course, the UK’s less than one per cent contribution to global man-made carbon dioxide emissions plays a tiny, insignificant role in any climate agreement, but potentially imposes huge economic costs and restrictions on the UK. The idea that climate agreements should stand up in court as an obstacle to essential infrastructure in the UK is as absurd as the agreements themselves.

Furthermore, the Paris Agreement is not legally binding on substance, it is only binding on reporting and there are no enforcement mechanisms via the United Nations. The UK’s net zero by 2050 target is legally binding, but the wriggle room comes under ‘net zero’ rather than ‘zero’ CO2 emissions.

Legally binding targets are foolish as there is never a costed, structured plan made in advance for how they might be achieved.

I’m available as a witness for the DfT if required as they don’t seem to have much of a clue about climate agreements that the Government signed up to, or even the will to defend themselves against the climate doomsday cult that the Government itself has empowered.

Paul Biggs Environment spokesman Alliance of British Drivers Tamworth Staffs B77

Technology could make road enhancements redundant

You report the legal challenge to the Government’s second Road Investment Strategy, which argues that the DfT failed to take into account the Paris Agreement on climate change (‘Judicial review sought of roads programme’ LTT 01 May).

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

We shall see if the Government’s intention to phase out the internal combustion engine for cars and vans will be a sufficient defence, unlike the successful challenge to the Heathrow third runway proposal where the possibility of new technology was not a credible response. Yet there may be more impediments to RIS2 than judicial review.

RIS2 was published at the time of the recent Budget in mid-March, committing to spend £27.4bn over the next five years on the Strategic Road Network (SRN).

The stated main priority is to maintain the existing roads. Only where existing roads are ‘simply not up to the job’ is the Department asking Highways England to develop wider, realigned or, in a few cases, wholly new roads to keep people and goods moving. Given this order of priorities, it is surprising that expenditure on maintenance is expected to be £12bn, less than capital enhancements worth £14bn.

Mid-March now feels an age ago, prior to the huge commitments of public expenditure to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. Will the funding allocated for roads withstand the scrutiny that will surely be necessary as the Government attempts to manage its enormous increase in borrowing? We need to ask to what extent road investment represents good value for money. Civil engineering is very costly, such that the rate of addition of lane-miles to the SRN in recent years has been less than the rate of population growth.

The road traffic forecasts underpinning the investment programme need to be reconsidered, to recognise that home working may become more common in the future, lessening commuting traffic at peak hours when the road network experiences greatest demand.

Chris Stark, chief executive of the Government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change, has proposed spending the roads budget on broadband to get a huge return to the economy with people having better connections.

Yet there is unrecognised scope for investment in digital technology within the RIS2 budget. One odd feature of this DfT/Highways England publication is the disregard of digital route guidance, provided by Google Maps, Waze, TomTom and others.

This is in very wide use by drivers because they find it of benefit in optimising routes under congested conditions and in estimating journey times. Roadside variable message signs are an outmoded technology, providing too little information, too late to be of much use.

There is a picture of a route guidance app on page 38 of the RIS2 document, but no mention of its relevance.

There is a statement that “Highways England will work with Transport Focus to investigate future opportunities to make more granular information about delay on the SRN publicly available. We anticipate that this might include reporting on a regional basis, journeys between conurbations, and maps showing delay across the network on a link-by-link basis.”

Highways England seems totally out of touch with the real world in which all this is already being provided.

Investment in digital technology would be far more cost effective than in civil engineering to improve the performance of the road network. Cooperation between public road authorities and private providers of digital navigation would be needed to optimise performance.

Regrettably, the private providers are very secretive about the functioning of their algorithms for providing individual drivers with optimal routes through congested traffic. So we do not know how provision of route guidance to large numbers of drivers impacts on

> MORE ON P24

SEND letters to be considered for publication to: Local Transport Today, Apollo House, 359 Kennington Lane, London SE11 5QY Email: ed.ltt@landor.co.uk (Letters may be edited)

Comment 23

Climate constraint Last week’s LTT Zoom discussion saw Professor Phil Goodwin present a paper on the topic of ‘Covid-19 and after: transport appraisal and planning in a time of imperatives’. He summarises the paper in his column this week (see overleaf) and the full version can be found on TransportXtra. As one would expect, this was a thoughtful piece of analysis and we urge readers to consider the important matters it raises about policy formulation and appraisal practice. Boiled down, the question the paper addressed was, should climate change sit alongside all the other impacts in scheme appraisal? Or is climate change such an imperative that it should sit above appraisal, acting as a filter for what policies can legitimately be brought forward?

The Government’s amendment to the Climate Change Act last summer, committing the UK to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, gives the question topicality. This is heightened by the possible looming legal challenge being brought by environmental groups who want to block the Government’s road investment strategy. Their case is based on the same climate grounds that saw the Appeal Court rule that the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow Airport was unlawful.

We find ourselves agreeing with Phil’s argument that, for any imperative, “there has to be clarity about what level of public agreement, and what level and type of trust, establishes the imperative in the first place, and those thresholds must – surely – be set very high.”

Applying that principle to climate, the questions arise, is the science robust, and has the democratic process been followed to make net zero legitimate? On both counts we have reservations.

This is not the right forum for a lengthy discussion of science, other than to say that the ‘settled science’ message is a shorthand that hides important uncertainties and disagreements.

On democratic process, net zero was written in to statute with no proper costings, no analysis of its implications, and no proper debate within parliament or amongst the public. Many MPs have pet road projects. Would they all have supported net zero if told it might mean waving goodbye to their road?

LTT798 Viewpoint and letters.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 06:56 Page 20

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (continued)

24 Comment

the overall efficiency of the network.

There is a way forward. In researching my recent book, Driving Change, I discovered that legislation exists, dating from 1989, that requires dynamic route guidance systems to be licenced by the Government.

The intention was to facilitate a pilot system developed by the Transport Research Laboratory (then part of the DfT), although in the event this did not proceed.

A licence may include conditions concerning unsuitable roads that should not be offered in route guidance, and provision of information on traffic conditions to road authorities.

No such licence has been issued, yet this mechanism would provide the basis for public/private collaboration that would be very cost effective in achieving better outcomes for road users. It would not conflict with the business models of the private providers, which depend on selling either location-specific advertising to retail businesses or equipment to car manufacturers.

The DfT and Highways England appear to have a fixation with shifting earth, pouring concrete and rolling tarmac, which is very costly and well behind the times. Fresh thinking is needed.

David Metz Centre for Transport Studies University College London www.drivingchange.org.uk

Segregated cycle lanes – a waste of money and space

I am a cyclist and am very much in favour of encouraging people to cycle but not building new bike lanes.

Please don’t be fooled by what the politicians are telling you about their plans for new cycle lanes.

Demand to see hard evidence. They are well-meaning but their dogma is flawed.

Winston Churchill said never waste a good crisis.

The reason – a crisis is a moment to make a bad or unpopular decision and get away with it on spurious grounds. This will happen if the Government uses the Covid-19 crisis to encourage the construction of new segregated cycle lanes.

Today’s appeal to people to walk or cycle to work is admirable but any encouragement of the building of cycle lanes is highly questionable for the following reasons: • They are not needed – the roads are currently empty and the pavements too. For example, one of the roads proposed for a new bike track in London is Park Lane.

During lockdown, I have cycled up and down Park Lane on numerous occasions and in all that time I have only once seen another cyclist!

• There is insufficient demand – cyclists make up fewer than 3 per cent of road users, excluding pedestrians. Even if cycling were to grow by 100 per cent, a tiny fraction of road users would still be cyclists.

However, in London, the number of Santander bike hires is falling dramatically. Don’t take my word for it; look at TfL’s own data at https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/number-bicyclehires [This shows that the number of hires fell from more than 20,000 a day on most days in February to less than 10,000 a day by the end of March, the latest available figures – Ed] • Segregated cycle lanes are a bad and inequitable allocation of road space because they give over 25 per cent of precious road space to a tiny proportion of road users who use that space for less than 20 per cent of the day and for 80 per cent of the day that space is empty and unavailable to all other road users. That is not fair to other road users and it is not an efficient use of road space • When the traffic comes back the cycle lanes will create unnecessary gridlock – there is clear evidence of this by studying places such as Blackfriars Bridge, where you see queuing traffic for most of the day and

no cycle traffic for most of the day • The argument that people will cycle if cycle lanes are provided is proven to be wrong – take a look at Stevenage, a town designed for cycle usage; it’s full of bike lanes just like Ghent but cycling uptake is just 3 per cent.

If you have the opportunity to quiz transport ministers and others on plans for bike lanes, please ask the following questions: • What study have you done on the demand for cycling as a proportion of road traffic and what does it show?

• What work have you done on the business case for cycle lanes and what does it show?

• What modelling have you done on overall traffic speeds and what does it show?

• What will be the impact on congestion when the traffic returns?

One place where a new segregated cycle track, known as CS9, has been proposed is Hammersmith Road but Transport for London’s own study forecast that the traffic will be reduced to just 3.75mph and there will be no benefit to air quality. How can it make sense to create such congestion?

TfL often cites the Embankment as a cycle route success. The question there should be: what has the construction of the cycle track done to the overall throughput of people along that route across the whole day? The answer according to the model I built, using TfL data, shows it to have been cut down by a third.

So overall that cycle track has been highly congesting since it was the primary East-West route across the centre of London.

David Tarsh London W14

You’ve read LTT – now join in our next online conversation!

Every fortnight we bring you your Local Transport Today magazine with unrivalled news, comment and analysis about the local transport scene. And now every fortnight – in the week between LTT issues – we bring you a discussion online that helps our audience of professionals keep connected with the key issues and each other during this time of isolation in response to the Coronavirus pandemic.

This fortnight’s webinar theme is:

RE-ALLOCATING ROAD SPACE IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 May 22 2020 @ 14:00 - 15:30 Fast-tracked statutory guidance, published on May 9 and effective immediately, tells councils to reallocate roadspace for significantly-increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians.

Transport Minister Grant Shapps (who has been invited to open the discussion) said: 'The government ... expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel.

May 22 2020 Agenda from 14:00:

Part 1: Statutory guidance, toolkit and funding (45 mins)

Part 2: Case studies and implementation issues (45 mins)

Chair: Andrew Forster, Editor, Local Transport Today

Chair: Robert Huxford, Director, Urban Design Group

Rupert Furness, Deputy Director, Active and Accessible Travel Division, Department for Transport (invited)

Mark Frost, Assistant Director Transport, Parking & Environmental Strategy, London Borough of Hounslow

Robert Huxford, Director, Urban Design Group Panel discussion

'I’m pleased to see that many authorities have already begun to do this, and I urge you all to consider how you can begin to make use of the tools in this guidance, to make sure you do what is necessary to ensure transport networks support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency and provide a lasting legacy of greener, safer transport.'

Join us on 22 May for another friendly gathering on Zoom.

Find out more: www.bit.ly/LTTV-04

Please email: tom.daldry@landortravelpublications.com for joining instructions

Andy Salkeld, Cycling and Walking, Leicester City Council David Harrison, vice-chair, London Living Streets Ruby Stringer, Senior Consultant, ITP Panel discussion

LTT798 Phil Goodwin.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 06:50 Page 23

TransportXtra.com/ltt

Comment 25

PHIL GOODWIN

Transport appraisal and planning in a time of imperatives

A

ll discussion of strategic and local transport planning at present is seen through the lens of the urgent imperatives of pandemic, which have changed the boundaries of policy in contradictory directions. Coronavirus has given a boost both to the Paris concept of the 15-minute city, a return to local provision of services, and great attention to short distance travel; but at the same time it has also given a boost to suburban and pseudo-rural living, implying low densities, long distances, car dependence, and an illusion that such growth could be coped with by a large expansion of road capacity.

So we are living in the middle of the largest, swiftest, changes in travel behaviour ever seen, and that has opened up futures of simultaneous inconsistent trends. Different things will be happening to different people, places, social groups, occupations and age groups. This does not mean that we are uncertain about whether one or the other direction will be taken. The near certainty is that they both will. The uncertainty is which will win, and where, and that is about policy, not forecasting. The overall effect is that the prospects are more complicated, with both the positive and negative possibilities more sharply defined.

So that brings me to my central point, which is what happens to the idea of a cautious, thoughtful, agreed, rationally planned future, implemented by evidence-based, elaborate, formal, appraisal rules and analytical methods?

These procedures were codified over half a century ago, in the 1960s, and were very influential especially in consideration of traffic congestion, and whether it was more economically efficient to treat it by road building or by road pricing, mostly concluding that pricing was more efficient but road building was to be chosen. (They were less influential in considering managing by other than pricing, which I’ll come back to).

At the heart of these methods was the concept of trade-off, for both individuals and policy-makers, analytically weighing

up the costs and benefits of alternatives against each other to see what is most worthwhile.

However what we are seeing is a more complex view of behaviour, a progressive widening of the scope and objectives of transport plans, and a greater recognition of uncertainty. In this, the rule-based calculation of benefit and cost trade-offs have generally been influential, but in slowing rather than accelerating the changes, only occasionally instrumental, and rarely decisive.

This was partly due to the effect of uncertainty on the intellectual credibility of forecasts of a ‘most probable future’, which is no longer a meaningful concept.

Planning under deep uncertainty now requires consideration of a range of alternative credible scenarios, for example with both the possibilities of high growth and low growth, even decline. This was already happening well before coronavirus added to the mix. In principle, rule-based appraisal can accommodate uncertainty, but mostly the attempt to do so in practice has been slow and reluctant.

So it’s ironic that at the same time as uncertainty about the future deepens, there has been a distinct move to its opposite: planning derived from imperatives. There seem to be four different situations where this has displaced, fully or in part, decision-making by formal BCR-type calculations.

The first relates to law. My thinking on this was triggered by the legal ruling on the proposed third Heathrow runway, saying that the proposal cannot go ahead because the formal appraisals – huge and voluminous - had not complied with a legal requirement to take into account a legal commitment on carbon reduction.

That commitment, in effect, took precedence. In the sense used in card games, the law trumped the calculations.

The underlying point is that abiding by the law is not itself a trade-off, to be weighed in the balance, but an imperative.

The second situation is the pandemic.

In this case there simply is not the luxury or moral authority for prolonged impartial weighing of costs and benefits (and, indeed, at an earlier stage when it seemed that there was interest in decisions based on a calculated trade-off between loss of life at a massive scale, and the ‘needs of the economy’, decision-makers swiftly backed away from the approach). Averting tragedy became an imperative in which budgets and actions were made available far beyond previous presumptions. So there has been the fast-track support for traffic management and road space reallocation for walking and cycling at a scale that some decades of

favourable cost benefit calculations had failed to deliver.

The third case is the much longer established application of imperatives to simple and common sense matters of traffic regulation – which side of the road to drive on, for example, or speed limits, or control of parking on road or pavement, or regulations determining standards for, say, the emission of noxious emissions. In all these cases there may well have been extensive research on costs and benefits before the regulations are established, but after they are embodied in law, they are treated as constraints, not trade-offs. It is not a revolutionary destruction of rational planning to assert and enforce such standards, but a practical way – perhaps the only practical way – of implementing rational planning.

The fourth case is where there are fundamental questions of moral values – the

investment appeared to accord them so little weight? The answer to that could indeed be that transport projects do not have much effect on carbon. Prima facie that sounds very dubious indeed. An alternative answer could be that erroneous technical methods and assumptions have been applied (I believe that to be so). In that case it can be corrected by suitable amendment to the parameters and relationships of appraisal, and the idea of trade-off survives.

The other possibility is that carbon simply does not belong in the BCR at all, but should be treated at a prior stage of policy and project definition.

So that’s the key question. What role do trade-offs have when the driving force of policy is imperative? There are things to disagree with in the way governments have handled the imperatives, but I don’t think imperatives in principle are irrational. Imperatives trump trade-offs.

So that’s the key question. What role do trade-offs have when the driving force of policy is imperative? Climate change, like Covid-19, has legal or moral or political authority that changes the importance that can be put upon the results of calculations of cost and benefit.

case of slavery, for example, where abolition most certainly had major economic consequences for everybody, with consequential personal and institutional interests for both slavers and enslaved.

But the decision, when it came, was not argued in terms of weighing up those economic arguments, but in terms of human rights and acceptable standards of civilisation. (Though an economic rationale was devised, and stood alongside the moral one).

So where does that leave the case of carbon? So far, the application of methods for calculations that had seemed so established in relation to saving seconds or minutes of travel time on journeys, has not had remotely the same impact on projects in relation to saving grams or tonnes of carbon on the same journeys. Yet carbon targets (rightly in my view) have been given a weight in strategic objectives based on the global imperative of climate change. Climate change, like Covid-19, has legal or moral or political authority that changes the importance that can be put upon the results of the calculations of specific cost and benefit.

The crucial question is why has the application of cost-benefit calculations to the carbon implications of transport

There will be all sorts of caveats and conditions that one would want to put on that. We can’t allow simply the assertion of imperative to throw away rationality.

That would be a blank cheque for arbitrary decisions. There has to be a clarity about what level of public agreement, and what level and type of trust, establishes the imperative in the first place, and those thresholds must – surely – be set very high. We will be faced with many such problems, as the carbon crisis proceeds without waiting for resolution of the pandemic crisis.

This is an abridged version of a paper that Phil presented to LTT’s Zoom discussion last week, entitled ‘Covid-19 and after: transport appraisal and planning in a time of imperatives’. The full paper and the discussion can be accessed by visiting TransportXtra.

Phil Goodwin is emeritus professor of transport policy at both the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol, and University College London. Email: philinelh@yahoo.com

LTT798_ad pages p14,16,26-31.qxp_LTT_ads_master 14/05/2020 14:45 Page 26

Consultants, Researchers & Suppliers

26 The LTT Directory

LTT798 15 May -28 May 2020

To get your profile in print and online call us on 020 7091 7895 or email jason@landor.co.uk

Air Quality Consultants Ltd provides independent expert advice on ambient air quality. Established in 1993, the Company has completed many assessments of road, rail, shipping and airport schemes. Its staff have presented expert evidence at numerous Public Inquiries. The Comapny plays a central role in the development of air quality management and assessment in the UK and abroad, and has developed guidance and many of the tools used for assessment.

Bristol contact: Penny Wilson on 0117 974 1086 London contact: Chris Whall on 020 3873 4313 Email: aqc@aqconsultants.co.uk www.aqconsultants.co.uk

C4ST is independent, clear-eyed, and practical. We provide you with the analysis, evidence, advice and the support you require at the point where key elements of modern transport meet – energy efficiency, vehicle emissions, “mobility as a service”, shared mobility services and demand reduction. C4ST is lead by two very experienced transport professionals who often work together but take separate commissions around their special interests.

Visit: www.c4st.uk Chris Endacott PhD: +44 (0)1743 366 182 Richard Armitage FCILT M: (0)7973 538 556 Incorporating Richard Armitage Transport Consultancy and Gfleet Services

CEC are a civil engineering consultancy with over 30 years’ experience, and an enviable reputation for quality, reliability and value. We provide transport planning, water management and civil engineering detailed design services including; access appraisals and feasibility studies, technical input to masterplans, Transport Statements & Assessments, Travel Plans, Travel Plan Co-ordinator role, Road Safety Audits, Flood Risk Assessments, drainage strategies, river modelling, highways and drainage detailed design, highway condition surveys and expert witness services.

Please contact: Swindon: Brett Farmery Tel: 01793 619965 Email: bfarmery@coleeasdon.com Bristol: Doug Hickman Tel: 01454 800474 Email dhickman@coleeasdon.com www.coleeasdon.com

Specialist consultancy providing highway, traffic and transportation advice to both the public and private sectors. Transportation Strategies, Transport Assessments, Sustainability Appraisals, Travel Plans, Policy Advice, Expert Witness Support.

Forester House, Doctor’s Lane, Henleyin-Arden, Warwickshire, B95 5AW Tel: 01564 793 598 Fax: 01564 793 983 inmail@dtatransportation.co.uk www.dtatransportation.co.uk

Gateway TSP

Gateway TSP offers cost effective and comprehensive Road Safety Engineering consultancy advice including:

• Road Safety Auditing • Road Safety Studies and Assessments (AIP) • Design of Local Road Safety Schemes • Walking, Cycling and Horse-riding Assessment and Review

Contact us on: 01483 679350 or by email at: info@gateway-tsp.co.uk Gateway TSP, 84 North Street, Guildford GU1 4AU www.gateway-tsp.co.uk

Independent sustainable transport planning and research consultancy, formed in 1998.

Our expert team of professionals works in partnership with public, private and third sector clients around the world, specialising in: • Sustainable Development • Data & Analytical Tools • Policy & Strategy • Public Transport • Smarter Travel • Research Web: Contact: Tel: Email:

www.itpworld.net Nick Ayland 0115 824 8250 ayland@itpworld.net

Intelligent Data are the market-leading providers of Traffic, Transport and Environmental data. To find out more about our ATC, MCC, ANPR, Environmental Data and Parking surveys please contact: info@intelligent-data-collection.com or call: 0845 003 8747

Specialists in all aspects of traffic signal design, analysis and training. As the producers of industry standard software such as LinSig, JCT is unrivalled in its ability to offer clients correct and appropriate solutions to their traffic problems. In particular, JCT is highly regarded for its expertise in signal roundabout and complex junction design having been involved in numerous projects and providing advice to Government at both National and Local level.

JCT Consultancy Ltd, LinSig House, Deepdale Enterprise Park, Nettleham, Lincoln LN2 2LL Tel: 01522 751010 Fax: 01522 751188 Email: anthony.gerundini@jctconsultancy.co.uk www.jctconsultancy.co.uk

Mayer Brown is a leading Consultancy for Transport Planning, Infrastructure Design and Environmental Assessment in the UK. Services include Transport Assessments, Travel Plans, Transport Planning, Accessibility Studies, Highway and Infrastructure Design, Air Quality and Noise Assessments, Road Safety Audits, Pedestrian and Cycle Networks, Regeneration Studies, SuDS, Drainage and Flood Risk Assessments, Topographical Surveys.

Offices in Woking (head office), London, Bristol, Birmingham, Leeds and Isle of Wight Contacts: Paul Stocker (Transport Planning) pstocker@mayerbrown.co.uk Tim Moore (Highway and Infrastructure Design) tmoore@mayerbrown.co.uk Tel: 01483 750508 www.mayerbrown.co.uk

Transport economics and logistics consultancy providing research services, freight transport modelling and advice to the public and private sectors since 1982, based on maintaining trade and transport databases and the specialist expertise of its consultants. Owner and operator of the GB Freight Model (GBFM), which forms the freight module of the DfT’s National Transport Model. Multimodal expertise in road, rail and urban freight, ports and shipping, ferries and inland waterways, air freight and warehousing The consultancy’s services for public sector clients in the freight and logistics sector include:

• Freight strategy and policy development at a regional, sub-regional and town/city level • Freight transport modelling using the GBFM • Regional and sub-regional analysis of international trade in goods • Forecasting of the strategic supply and demand for warehousing • Freight demand forecasts, capacity analysis and feasibility studies for freight terminals, infrastructure networks and freight services • Evaluation of user and non-user benefits of freight projects and strategies • Global supply, demand and economic analysis of ferries and container shipping • Rail, planning and commercial advice concerning the development of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges.

Contact Chris Rowland Tel: 01244-348301 Email: chris.rowland@mdst.co.uk

Nationwide Data Collection (NDC) provides specialist data collection services for transport planning, traffic engineering and market research. Our staff have unrivalled experience in organising large scale data collection exercises with particular expertise being available in conducting manual & automatic traffic counts, roadside interviews, pedestrian counts & interviews, ANPR, Infrared video, radar speed surveys and parking studies.

UK offices in Scotland, Ossett, Warwick and London. Ireland offices in Dublin and Athlone. European office in the Netherlands enquiries@nationwidedatacollection.co.uk www.nationwidedatacollection.co.uk

We are a transport planning consultancy, covering all modes of transport including railways, public transport, highways, cycle, walk and air transport. We specialise in advanced multi-modal transport modelling, forecasting and appraisal together with its market research and computer software.

Over 25 years experience in a wide range of UK and international projects including specialist toll road model audits. Our innovative transport planning software, Visual Choice for advanced demand modelling and Visual-tm for everything else combines fast, powerful multi-modal modelling with a friendly user interface.

S2, S3, S4 Audley House, Northbridge Road, Berkhamsted, Herts HP4 1EH Tel: +44 (0) 1442 879075 mail@peter-davidson.com www.peter-davidson.co.uk

PFA Consulting has over 30 years’ experience of providing development advice and solutions to the public and private sectors. Services include: access appraisals and feasibility studies; transport assessments and statements; junction assessment and microsimulation modelling; sustainable transport and travel plans; planning appeals and expert witness; flood risk assessment and drainage strategies; highways and drainage design; walking, cycling and horse-riding assessment and review; input to legal agreements; and construction supervision and management.

PFA Consulting Ltd, Stratton Park House, Wanborough Road, Swindon SN3 4HG Tel: 01793 828000 Email: admin@pfaplc.com www.pfaplc.com

Q-Free offers a complete range of ITS products, solutions and professional services based on the most advanced and cost-effective technologies with an established UK Office and Production Facility based in Weston-Super-Mare in the South West of the UK. Products, Solutions & Services include: Traffic Counters & Classifiers; Cycle & Pedestrian Monitoring; Bluetooth™ Traffic Monitoring; Weigh-In Motion Systems; Tolling Systems; Parking Systems & Solutions.

Contact us: Tel: 01934 644299 Email: sales.uk@q-free.com www.tdcsystems.co.uk

Severnside TDC specialise in the provision of Transportation Data Collection Studies.

Our client focus and attention to customer satisfaction allows us to provide a professional service for every piece of work. Our services inlude but are not restricted to Video based Transport Surveys, ANPR, Drone Surveys, Public Transport, Cycle/Pedestrian Studies & Parking Studies.

Contact: Stephen Jones Email: steve@severnsidetdc.co.uk www.severnsidetdc.co.uk

Specialists in all types of Traffic and Transport Survey and Data Consultancy Operating throughout the UK, Ireland and internationally, we utilise the best and most appropriate technology, techniques, skills and experience available to deliver data solutions. Our central support and technology teams together with our network of operational bases employing over 200 full time specialists allows us to deliver some of the largest and most complex data collection contracts in the UK alongside individual local projects all utilising the innovation and skills Tracsis are known for. Technologies we use include digital ANPR, Video, Bluetooth, WiFi, ATC, Video Analytics, GIS asset management and Mobile Phone Network Data Analytics. See our website for local office details or contact our Head Office at: Tel: +44 (0)1937 833 933 Email: TaDS@Tracsis.com www.TracsisTraffic.com

The Transportation Consultancy (ttc) is a dynamic and innovative transportation consultancy that specialises in transport planning, traffic engineering, sustainable transport and transport economics. Our people have over 100 years of combined technical knowledge and can offer you expert advice covering the whole transportation sector, helping you to make sound decisions in today’s complex environment. Our advice is underpinned by innovation, technical excellence and expert opinion, enabling our clients to make sound decisions in what is often a complex and challenging environment. “ttc” has a set of values that guides us in our everyday business and continues to drive our ambition to provide unrivalled advice that helps deliver the best transportation solutions to our clients.

Please contact Alan Bailes Tel: 07803 894686 Email: info@ttc-transportplanning.com www.ttc-transportplanning.com

The CIVINET UK & Ireland Network is the sustainable transport network for local authorities. Members can access European and national funding information, comprehensive sustainable transport expertise and networking events. Private organisations are welcome as associate members.

Tel: 0117 907 6520 Email: civinet-uk-ireland@civitas.eu www.civitas.eu/civinet-uk-ireland

PTRC Education & Research Services Co Ltd is a company within CILT (UK). PTRC is the leading international organisation specialising in the training of transport, highways and planning professionals.

Tel: 020 7348 1970 Emai: info@ptrc-training.co.uk www.ptrc-training.co.uk

Join the Transport Planning Society – the professional home for transport planners and transport planning qualifications!

The TPS facilitates, develops and promotes best practice in transport planning and provides a focus for dialogue and debate between all those engaged in it, whatever their background or other professional affiliation. TPS works closely with its four partners ICE, CILT (UK), CIHT and RTPI to further the profession and in the development of professional qualifications, such as the Professional Development Scheme (PDS) and the Chartered Transport Planning Professional (CTPP). We also hold great events, bursary competitions, awards and much more – check out our website for details.

Tel: +44 (0)20 7665 2238 Email: info@tps.org.uk www.tps.org.uk

Specialists

View their full CVs at TransportXtra.com/consultants

BURGESS Peter. M.Sc. (Econ), B.A.(Ind.Econ), Cert.Dip. AF, MCILT Transport Economics Limited DfT Business Case Support. Economic Impact Reports. Mode Split Revenue Support Grant. Waterbourne Freight Grant.

European Funding (Evaluator): (INEA) Connecting Europe Facility; (EASME): HORIZON 2020 (SMART cities and Urban Mobility).

Innovate UK bid support: Economic and Environmental Impact criterion Email: peter.burgess@transportecon.com www.transportecon.com HURDLE David. DipTP, MA, MRTPI, FCILT Transport Planning Consultant Travel Plans, Transport Policies/Strategies and Active Travel Audits.

Broomfield, 20 Holt Road, Sheringham NR26 8NB Tel: 01263 822300 Mobile: 07808 533165 Email: d.hurdle@btinternet.com www.davidhurdle.co.uk STAVELEY Peter. MSc CMILT Public Transport Consultancy Railway and bus operational planning, public transport strategy, railway timetabling, capacity studies, software development, data manipulation.

247 Davidson Road, Croydon, CR0 6DQ Tel: 07973 168742 Email: Peter@PeterStaveley.co.uk www.PeterStaveley.co.uk

LTT798_ad pages p14,16,26-31.qxp_LTT_ads_master 14/05/2020 14:45 Page 27

TransportXtra.com/ltt

The LTT Directory

The LTT Directory 27

Learning Intelligence Networking & Knowledge Sharing

www.landor.co.uk

//Automatic Traffic Surveys

// Skilled and dedicated teams throughout the UK

Tube/Radar/Bluetooth

Full national coverage

// Manual Surveys

TRAFFIC + TRANSPORTATION

Roadside Interviews / Public Transport / Cycle & Pedestrian Surveys / Parking Studies / Market Research

// Video Surveys ANPR / High Mast / Covert Studies/ Journey Times Surveys

THE DATA COLLECTION SPECIALISTS

Contact Joe Maclaren or Jeremy Rowlands

surveys@ctstraffic.co.uk // 01772 251400

WWW.CTSTRAFFIC.CO.UK

LTT798_ad pages p14,16,26-31.qxp_LTT_ads_master 14/05/2020 14:45 Page 28

LTT798_ad pages p14,16,26-31.qxp_LTT_ads_master 14/05/2020 14:45 Page 29

LTT798_ad pages p14,16,26-31.qxp_LTT_ads_master 14/05/2020 14:45 Page 30

LTT798 15 May -28 May 2020

30 The LTT Directory

The next issue of LTT will be published: Friday 29 May Advertising booking deadline: Tuesday 26 May

For recruitment advertising please contact Jason on: 020 7091 7895 or email: jit@landor.co.uk

For display and directory advertising please contact Jason on: 020 7091 7895 or email: jason@landor.co.uk

LTT798_ad pages p14,16,26-31.qxp_LTT_ads_master 14/05/2020 14:45 Page 31

www.Jobs-in-Transport.com

Recruitment 31

The best jobs for transport specialists start here Below is a selection of the top vacancies currently advertised on the UK’s leading transport jobs board: www.Jobs-in-Transport.com

Strategic Transport Lead

Senior Engineer Highways

£41,675 - £44,632 per annum

To meet our growth ambitions, we are seeking high calibre Principal Civil Engineers (Roads and Infrastructure) in our Gloucestershire office to work on an expanding portfolio of the biggest and most challenging UK projects. Using your excellent people, technical and delivery skills, you will drive a variety of civil and structural designs for new build, renewal, maintenance and assessment works. There will also be the opportunity to work on overseas projects and with our internationally based design teams.

Oxfordshire County Council is looking for a Strategic Transport Lead to take forward infrastructure policy and strategy.

About the Role Working in the Infrastructure Strategy Team at Oxfordshire County Council, the postholder will be taking forward policy, strategy and projects across infrastructure planning, with a focus on transport, to meet Council and wider Stakeholder aims to support the Oxfordshire economy, whilst also improving residents’ quality of life. The challenges the team are aiming to influence include: - responding to the climate emergency, supporting housing and employment growth, promoting healthy place shaping, and planning for the right type of infrastructure investment. These will shape Oxfordshire for many years to come, and this post will be at the heart of it.

The successful candidate will be responsible for engaging with clients in both the delivery of projects and the development of future work as well as the mentoring and personal development of team members Closing date: 12th June 2020

APPLY NOW: https://bit.ly/3cxzIiC

Leading on transport strategy and policy development, the post-holder will be responsible for managing the development and adoption of our new Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP), working in partnership with others to identify and deliver policies that take into account wider challenges and priorities. They will also be responsible for taking forward policy and plans for better management and development of public transport and freight across Oxfordshire, ensuring that the County Council harnesses and promotes best practice in these areas.

APPLY NOW: https://bit.ly/2Apunf7

Closes: 26th May 2020

TCF Project Lead £43,662 - 49,398 per year The Southampton City Region (covering Southampton and part of Hampshire) has received £57m of funding from the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) to deliver on our exciting and ambitious plan to transform transport connectivity.

Our ambition is to transform people’s journeys, lives and the places they live with better connections for walking, cycling and using public transport.

Head of Client Transport £68486 - £71999 per annum Buckinghamshire Council has an exciting opportunity for a Head of Client Transport.

We are looking for an experienced individual to lead and manage the client transport function across Buckinghamshire which procures and leads transport delivery for home to school transport and social care.

To help to deliver on our proposals we are looking for proactive and organised individuals to undertake the roles of Transforming Cities Fund Project Leads. These are 3-year fixed term positions, primarily based within Southampton City Council’s Strategic Transport team, but will work in partnership with colleagues at Hampshire County Council.

Closing date: 9th June 2020

APPLY NOW: https://bit.ly/2y11TYp

This is an exciting time to join the UK’s newest council in a single unitary council serving the residents of Buckinghamshire.

Closing date: 25th May 2020

APPLY NOW: https://bit.ly/3cx0ojI

Public Transport Programme Manager (Bus Infrastructure) £47,742- 52,373 per annum

RECRUIT HERE To advertise please contact Jason on: 020 7091 7895 or email: jason@landor.co.uk

The West of England is an economic leader with an economy worth over £33 billion a year. With a population of over 1.1 million people, one of the highest rates of employment in the country, and over 45,000 businesses, the region competes on a global scale. The West of England is a place where highly-skilled people work, where ideas flourish, and where businesses grow. It’s also a place that a diverse population of people call home.

We are seeking a talented and dynamic Programme Manager to join our Capital Delivery Team delivering the Public Transport Programme. This role is pivotal to our local region and it underpins our commitment towards Carbon Neutrality. This is a senior position and significant experience of managing public transport - bus infrastructure projects is essential.

Closing date: 31st May 2020

APPLY NOW: https://bit.ly/2Lq8rme

LTT798 front and back.qxp_LTT759_pXX 15/05/2020 07:33 Page 2

Editorial

Tel: 0207 091 7875 | Email: ed.ltt@landor.co.uk

Advertising

Tel: 0207 091 7895 | Email: ads@landor.co.uk

Next issue

Published 29 May 2020

TransportXtra.com/ltt

LTT798 15 May - 28 May 2020

News

People

Milton Keynes EV owners to trial smart charge systems

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

ELECTRIC VEHICLE owners in Milton Keynes are being invited to take part in technology trials to manage the peaks of electricity use from home EV charging.

EV drivers can apply to trial domestic ‘smart’ chargers; vehicle to grid (V2G) chargers; home battery storage; and charging using home solar PV (photovoltaic) systems. Participants will be given the option to keep the equipment at the end of the project for a fee.

The ‘domestic energy balancing EV charging project’ is being delivered by CrowdCharge on behalf of Milton Keynes Council, with Flexitricity as the energy

demand response partner.

CrowdCharge produces a digital platform, accessed via an app, to manage multiple EV chargers.

The project partners say the trials will assist electricity Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) and the wider electricity industry manage the peaks in electricity demand caused by EV charging.

To take part in the V2G element of the trial, participants must have a Nissan EV with a battery capacity of at least 30kWh or more.

Participants will receive an incentive of £10 per month, assuming minimum participation parameters are met, such as charging their EV for a full cycle ten times a month over the 12-month

City regions’ bus grant anger FROM FRONT PAGE

services that are not being provided, including concessionary fare payments for passengers that are not travelling.”

The UTG questioned how the new grant will be administered.

“Demand and service levels are likely to vary much more unpredictably during the recovery period in different places at different times making the system impractical to administrate effectively whilst guaranteeing that public money is not wasted.”

Operators might push up fares, it said. “With capacity restricted, it would make economic sense for operators to seek to increase fares and there is nothing in the current funding arrangements to legally prevent this from happening.”

Noting the Government’s separate Covid-19 funding arrangements for rail, bus and light rail, the UTG said: “It makes no sense to continue this fragmented and uncoordinated approach when the limited capacity of heavily social distanced public transport networks needs to be planned as a whole during the recovery period.

This is clearly best done by city regions themselves informed by what is needed locally, rather than remotely from Whitehall.”

The UTG wants the Government funding for bus services routed to local transport authorities in the form of a new Bus Service Recovery Grant.

“This funding would be used by authorities to contract for a network of services that best meets the needs of their areas, which

trial duration.

They will also be able to keep the technologies at the end of the trial for ownership transfer fees of £100 for the smart charger, £250 for the V2G charger, and £250 for the stationary battery storage device.

Councillor Martin Gowans, Milton Keynes Council’s cabinet member for planning and transport, said: “The project is one of four pioneering trials that will place Milton Keynes at the forefront of developments in electric vehicle charging technology.”

All the trials are part of the city’s Go Ultra Low programme funded by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles. forms part of a wider coordinated public transport service.

“Service contracts would be awarded directly (through minor amendments to the current legislation on the tendering of services) to existing operators in practically all cases. Service timetables would then be agreed between operators and local authorities and would be adjusted regularly in response to changing demand for bus travel during the recovery phase.

“All the fares income from bus services would come to the local transport authority, with the new Bus Services Recovery Grant used to close the remaining gap between the cost of providing services and the income from fares.”

The UTG said its proposals would “end the bureaucracy and potential wasted public money from the unproven national system of clawback of any overpayment inherent in the current system”.

Wehner swaps burgers for EVs James Wehner has joined rapid electric vehicle chargepoint firm Engenie as chief technology officer. Wehner will focus on improving the customer experience of EV charging. He spent five years as global product director of McDonald’s, overseeing the introduction of self-service kiosks at restaurants in more than 70 countries.

Hunter quits bus industry for university Gavin Hunter has left his position as area managing director for Arriva Bus in the Shires and Essex to become the University of Winchester’s chief operating officer. Hunter had worked for Arriva since 2017 and before that was managing director of Go-Ahead in East Anglia.

Capon is new chief at JAG(UK) Dave Capon has been appointed chief executive of JAG(UK), which represents all 209 street and road authorities in street and road works matters. He takes over from Jerry McConkey, who has stepped down after six years in post.

Jackson is RAC Foundation chair Neville Jackson has been appointed the new chair of the RAC Foundation, succeeding Joe Greenwell CBE. Jackson was formerly chief technology and innovation officer at engineering and environmental consultancy Ricardo PLC, and has also served as chair of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership.

Sellwood named LowCVP’s new chair Philip Sellwood CBE is the new chair of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP), the 200+ member organisation.

He moves from the Energy Saving Trust where he was group chief executive, and succeeds Darran Messem who served six years in post.

Rosewell retires from NR board Changes to Network Rail’s non-executive directors see economist Bridget Rosewell step down after nine years and Mark Bayley, Fiona Ross, and Michael Harrison appointed.

Bayley is a former chief executive of London & Continental Railways Ltd, who led the sale of HS1. Ross was appointed chair of Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ), Ireland’s pubic transport provider, by the Irish Government in 2018. Harrison has been appointed by the secretary of state for transport, Grant Shapps.

Love Bhabuta Love Bhabuta, a strategy and policy manager in Surrey Council Council’s transport policy team, has died after contracting Covid-19. He had worked for Surrey since 2004.

Ronald Frampton Ronald Frampton, Oxford’s deputy city engineer in the 1960s, has died at the age of 103. He helped deliver Britain’s first busbased park-and-ride facility at Redbridge, in the south of the city, in 1973.